PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:          25 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER   AC95-06109A
				  AR1998013524

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests a reconsideration of his prior request to upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he knows that his repeated occurrences of AWOL were wrong.  He requests that the Board consider his age and immaturity, his father’s death, lower educational level, and his involvement with alcohol as mitigating factors.  He requests that his post service good conduct in concert with the above mitigating factors be considered and requests that the Board afford him clemency and compassion.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty on 27 December 1967 with a waiver at age 17 with a 10th grade education.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 13 placing him in a category IV.  He successfully completed basic training and military occupational specialty school 94B10, cook, without incident.   He attained the rank of E-4 in May 1968, receiving excellent rating on his conduct and efficiency reports through February of 1969. 

5.  While serving in Viet Nam, the applicant was notified of his father’s impending death and he was granted emergency leave.  His father passed away while he was in transit.  At his mother’s request, as he was a sole surviving son, the Army granted him a compassionate reassignment to Ft. Knox.

6.  The applicant’s medical records show treatment for gastric complaints that were attributed to over indulgence of alcohol on three occasions following his reassignment stateside. 

7.  The record shows four periods of AWOL between February and October 1969 for a total of 73 days of lost time.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for the first three occurrences and following consultation with a lawyer, he requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.

8.  On 18 November 1969, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had served 1 year, 8 months and 9 days creditable service and had 73 days lost time.

9.  The applicant has requested a review of his records on three occasions with submission of post service letters of character attesting to his good character, his excellent work record and his civic activities each time.  The current submissions include a letter of appreciation from his employer and letters of character from his employer, his minister and the president of his labor union.  These statements describe him as “honest, trustworthy, diligent and faithful, “a man who gives of the most himself”, who “takes his job and responsibilities seriously” and the “type of person who would do anything for you.”  

10.  He also submits copies of police name checks that show no arrests, convictions or citations for even minor traffic violations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

12.  Department of Defense Directive 1332.28, Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals by the Armed Forces Discharge Review Boards.  Enclosure (4) to the directive deals with discharges review standards and includes in areas of consideration, “post service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review.” 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under duress or coercion.

2.  Notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge, the Board is of the opinion that it was the applicant’s immaturity and inappropriate reaction to the loss of his father that lead to his infractions rather intentional actions to avoid his obligations.

3.  The applicant’s post service conduct and accomplishments do, in fact, highlight, by contract, the immaturity of an under educated 18-year old that he exhibited during his enlistment.  In a balancing of the applicant’s early good service, his grief over the loss of his father with its inappropriate use of alcohol and his excellent post service conduct against his three AWOL offenses, the Board believes to continue to stigmatize him with an undesirable discharge is unduly harsh.

4.  Given the applicant’s repeated offenses it is not equitable to characterize his service as full honorable, however, the above noted factors do indicate that the undesirable discharge is too harsh and that a general discharge is more appropriate.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

a.  voiding his undesirable discharge of 18 November 1969;

b.  showing that the individual concerned was separated with a general under honorable conditions discharge on 18 November 1969; and, 

c.  issuing him a new DD 214 Report of Separation and General Discharge Certificate, dated 18 November 1969, reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

__JMA__  __JLP___  ___SC__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____James M. Alward_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC95-06109A
AR1998013524	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990225	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.70/689	
2.	A71.10/708	
3.	A93. 2/836	
4.		
5.		
6.