MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 October 1998                                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10310

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Vick		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In an attached letter he says that he needs an honorable discharge so that he can file for VA disability benefits from his second enlistment. He submits a copy of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) case report in support of his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He reenlisted in the Regular Army from the Army Reserve on 2 March 1976.  He had a prior period of honorable service from August 1969 to August 1971.  Information provided by the VA shows that he has been rated 30% disabled for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his first period of service.

He completed training in field artillery and was promoted to pay grade E4 in January 1978.  From July through October 1978 he was AWOL on four occasions for a total of 10 days.  He was convicted by special court-martial of two of those AWOL offenses and breaking restriction.  The punishment included reduction to E1.

He was AWOL again from 19 January 1979 to 9 April 1984.  On 29 September 1982 the applicant was informed by letter that he was eligible for a discharge in absentia.  He was notified that his discharge would likely be under other than honorable conditions, that he would likely be ineligible for many or all military and VA benefits, and he was offered the opportunity to submit extenuating matters in his own defense.  Although the record indicates that the letter to the applicant was delivered, he never responded in his own behalf.

On 9 April 1984 the applicant was discharged in absentia.  His DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He had 2 years, 6 months, and 22 days creditable service and 2,021 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 21 January 1994 he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 18 July 1996 the ADRB, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny relief.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s prior period of honorable service, the applicant’s conduct in becoming a deserter from the Army is inconsistent with the quality of service necessary of an honorable or general discharge characterization.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___sac_  __jev____  ___lls           DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director