PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023670

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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, in effect, that he be issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and codifying his honorable service during his first enlistment from 3 November 1992 through 2 November 1995.  In addition, he requests that the DD Form 214 he was issued in conjunction with his discharge on 6 November 1998 be corrected to cover only his second enlistment from 3 November 1995 to 6 November 1998.   

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had completed a full term of service and needs this codified in order to obtain his veterans benefits, to include education benefits.  He goes on to say that the DD Form 214 he received does not list his previous honorable service and incorrectly states that he did not complete his first enlistment.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 3 November 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewman), and was assigned to Hawaii for his first permanent duty station. 

5.  On 13 August 1993 the applicant was awarded the Air Assault Badge upon his successful completion of a 2 week course at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.  He earned the Army Good Conduct Medal for his first three year period of service from 3 November 1992 to 2 November 1995 and on 16 February 1994, he earned the Army Achievement Medal for achievement during the period 6 to 
26 January 1994.

6.  On 29 March 1995, the applicant reenlisted for 5 years at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.  At the time of this reenlistment he had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 26 days of honorable service and held the rank of specialist/E-4.  On 31 October 1995, the applicant successfully completed his overseas tour in Hawaii and was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.  His service remained honorable and his record is free of any disciplinary problems prior to his committing the misconduct which led to his discharge in 1998.

7.  On 16 February 1998, the applicant went AWOL from his unit at Fort Lewis and remained away for 148 days until he returned to military control on 14 July 1998.  A court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for the AWOL and after consulting with legal counsel he requested discharge, under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

8.  On 14 October 1998, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for an administrative separation, directed that the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  Accordingly, on 6 November 1998 the applicant was discharged after completing 5 years, 7 months, and 6 days of active military service and having had accrued 148 days of time lost due to AWOL.  The DD Form 214 issued the applicant covered his entire period of service and in block 18 there was an entry which indicated that the applicant had not completed his first full term of service.  

9.  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 are 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. 

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  Paragraph 1-4b states, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will not be prepared for enlisted members discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army.  Paragraph 2-8 contains instructions for the preparation of the DD Form 214 and states, in pertinent part, that item 18 will contain a list of enlistment periods for which a DD Form 214 was not issued under the provisions of paragraph 1-4b (example entry:  Immediate reenlistments this period: 761210-791001; 791002-821001).  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for an administrative separation in order to avoid prosecution was correct and in conformance with applicable regulations, and the DD Form 214 issued at the time was administratively correct.  In addition, the Board found that the overall quality of the applicant’s service for his last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge.

2.  However, while the Board does not condone the offense of AWOL, consideration should be given to the fact that it was strictly a military infraction and not otherwise a serious offense against society.  Further, it was noted that the preponderance of the applicant’s service was honorable, particularly that period up to 2 November 1995, the date he would have completed his first full term of service.
3.  The Board concluded, in view of the honorable nature of the applicant’s service during his first enlistment, that he should be provided a complete and unconditional separation, effective 2 November 1995, which was the expiration date of his first term of service.  To do otherwise would work an injustice upon him by permanently attaching a stigma to his total military service, and possibly denying him the right to certain VA benefits he had earned as a result of his honorable service during his first enlistment.  

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of the honorable nature of the applicant’s first term of service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider granting him an honorable discharge for the period from 
3 November 1992 to 2 November 1995, his first full term of service, and considering this honorable discharge as a complete and unconditional separation from military service.  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 concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from military service, with an honorable discharge, at the time he completed his first term of service on 2 November 1995.  

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___dw __  ___mw __  ___hof __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Hubert O. Fry, Jr.______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023670	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1998/11/06	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.