PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 February 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999016687

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr.  George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr.  Thomas B. Redfern III		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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to at least a general discharge, that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect his award of an Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and attendance at the Combat Lifesavers Course, and that his mother’s name be removed from block 19b.

3.  The applicant states that he was an excellent soldier who never had any problems until Jan 1995 when he began experiencing personal problems.  He further states that he requested help and didn’t receive any.  He continues by stating that his DD Form 214 does not reflect his award of the AAM or his attendance at the Combat Lifesavers Course.  He also states that his mother does not live with him and his DD Form 214 incorrectly lists her in block 19b as his nearest relative and indicates his address.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his award of the AAM and his certificate of training for the Combat Lifesavers Course.

4.  The applicant’s military records, though somewhat incomplete, show that he enlisted in Springfield, Massachusetts on 10 April 1991 for a period of 4 years, training as a multiple launch rocket systems crewman, and a cash enlistment bonus of $3,500.

5.  On 12 August 1994, while stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and training as a unit supply specialist.

6.  The applicant went AWOL on 11 February 1995 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities and was returned to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky on 20 October 1997 where charges were preferred against him.

7.  On 29 October 1997, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated that he had been fully advised of his rights, that he understood the possible effects of a discharge of under other than honorable conditions, that he had not been subjected to coercion by anyone, that under no circumstances did he desire rehabilitation or the opportunity to perform further military service, and that he did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

8.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge on 6 February 1998 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

9.  Accordingly, he was separated under other than honorable conditions on 6 March 1998 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 4 years, 4 months, and 14 days of total active service and had approximately 978 days of lost time due to AWOL.

10.  At the time of his discharge his DD Form 214 did not indicate that he had been awarded the AAM or attended the Combat Lifesavers Course.  It also listed his mother by name and indicated that she resided at the applicant’s mailing address after separation.

11.  The supporting documents submitted by the applicant include an award of the AAM dated 15 November 1993 and issued under permanent orders number 309-02.  He also submits a certificate showing that he completed the Combat Lifesavers Course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma on 4 February 1994 and that the period of the course was 1 week in duration.

12.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 4 June 1998, citing essentially the same reasons as he has cited to this Board.  The ADRB determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues of relief or assistance without committing the misconduct and opined that his discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable.  The ADRB denied his request on 19 November 1999.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Such a request is strictly voluntary on the part of the person who has been charged and they must indicate that they have been briefed on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and must also indicate that they have not been coerced by anyone to request such a discharge.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that the information contained in block 19b (Nearest Relative) will be obtained from the individual being separated at the time the DD Form 214 WS (worksheet) is prepared in preparation for final separation and issuance of the DD Form 214.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by  court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he sought assistance for his problems and could not get any are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  Although he has not explained the nature of his problems, the Army has numerous support systems/programs to assist soldiers with a myriad of problems without resorting to going AWOL.  Accordingly his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the serious nature of his offense and his extensive absence. 

5.  However, the applicant’s contention that his award of the AAM and attendance at the Combat Lifesavers Course were incorrectly omitted from his DD Form 214 appear to have merit.  While the Board cannot determine with any degree of certainty if the documents were in his records at the time of separation, he clearly is entitled to have the entries included at this time.

6.  The applicant’s contention that the entry in block 19b of the DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects that his mother resided at the address he was residing at after separation, appears to be without merit.  The information contained in that block, although intended to be temporary in nature, is not contained in the military personnel records and must be obtained from the individual concerned at the time of separation processing.  Accordingly, it must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the applicant provided the information at the time and there is no basis to change that information at this time. 

7.  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 showing that the individual was awarded the AAM and that he completed the Combat Lifesavers Course in 1994 for a period of 1 week in duration.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__gdp___  __mkp___  __tbr___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016687	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/02/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1998/03/06	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10 . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT )	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.7000	689/A70.00	
2.110.0000	189/CORR 214	
3.107.0000	46/AWDS	
4.		
5.		
6.