The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Un ited States District 1 Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1522

___________ Walter E. Johnston, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of * the Army, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 26, 1996 Filed: January 2, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Wa lter E. Johnston appeals from the district court's orde r 1 affirming the decision of the Army Board for Correction of M ilitary Records (the Board) denying hi s request to upgrade his "other than honora ble" discharge. In 1985, Johnston enlisted in the Unite d States Army; he was subsequently charged under the Military Code of Jus tice with willful disobedience of a superior officer, and tw o specifications of being absent without leave. On July 22, J ohnston
was pl aced in pretrial confinement and met with his militar y counsel. On July 23, Johnstonsigned a "request for discharge for the good of the Service," pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 6 35-200, ¶ 10-1(a). On July 31, the general court-martial convenin g authority approved the request, and Johnston received an "otherAR 63 5-200, ¶ 10-2(a) provides: "[A] member will not b e 2 coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the goodof the Service. The member will be given a reasonable time (not le ss than 72 hours) to consult with cons ulting counsel . . . and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge." -2- than honorable" discharge from the Army. The Army Discharge Review Board denied Johnston's applications for review on three occ asions. In 198 9, the Board denied Johnston's application to upgrade hi s discha rge. In 1995, the district court affirmed the Board' s decision, concluding that the Army complied with AR 635-200, ¶ 10- 2(a). Johnston timely appealed, arguing the Army violated it s

2 regulations by not affording him at least 72 hours to contemplate his discharge request. We now affirm.

We review the Board's decision not to take corrective action only to determine whether its decisionmaking process was def icient. Watso nv. Arkansas Nat'l Guard , 886 F.2d 1004, 1011 & n.16 (8t h Cir. 1989); accord Wolfe v. Marsh , 835 F.2d 354, 356 n.3 (D. C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 942 (1988). We agree with th e district court that the Army afforded Johnston at least 72 h ours to con sider his discharge request, complying with AR 635-200, ¶ 10

- 2(a), because he had more than 72 hours to contemplate hi s discharge request between the consultation with his counsel on July 22, th e signing of the request on July 23, the submission of a letter seeking approval of the discharge request on July 26, an d the a pproval of the discharge request on July 31. Moreover, w e note that Johnston admitted in his discharge request that it wa s voluntary and free of coercion, and that his counsel informed him of the possibility of receiving an "other than honorable" di scharge and the military and civilian ramifications of such a discharge
. Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
.