PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           20 January 2000                         
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026125

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge and changing his RE code from RE-3B to a more favorable one.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he knows that the actions that led to his discharge were inappropriate and the reactions of an immature individual.  He asks the Board to review his post-service conduct and afford him equitable relief.  The applicant indicates that has learned from his mistakes and that he wishes to be able to be reenter military service, the Guard or the Reserves.

4.  The Memorandum of Consideration reflecting the Board’s 21 September 1994 review of the applicant’s request is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.

5.  The applicant submits 5 letters of appreciation and 13 letters of recommendation, which he has received in the course of his post-service careers and work as a deputy sheriff.  These documents and the request for post-service conduct consideration were not available to the Board at the time of the prior reviews.

6.  In the applicant’s prior submissions he indicated that, after being denied a hardship discharge, he deliberately set out to commit offenses that would result in his being discharged.  The applicant was successful in this effort and was discharged under the provisions of AR635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of court-martial.

7. The applicant submits an outline his work history that shows a progression to positions of ever increasing responsibilities and a dedication to a strong work ethic. 

8.  The letters submitted on behalf of the applicant describe him as a dedicated and responsible individual.  They commend him for his efforts and assistance at a variety of events as well as his dedication to others.  He is described as a great asset in his position and as an individual who contributes greatly to the community.  

9.  Most noted is a letter from a retired combat US Naval officer who highly praises the applicant.  It describes the applicant as a man who upholds the highest of traditions of duty, honor and country.  This letter also notes that the applicant is faced with the loss of his position with the Sheriff’s Department as a result of changes in state law if he does not receive an upgrade of his discharge. He affords the opinion that this would be a great loss to the department and the community.
10.  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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

11.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  No error or injustice was found in the applicant’s discharge proceeding or in the prior decisions of this Board.  The character of discharge and RE code was appropriate for the offences he committed.  

2.  The documents submitted by the applicant, that attest to the applicant’s post-service character and dedication to the community, describe a significantly different individual than the one who used the system to obtain the results he desired, i.e. to be discharged prior to the expiration of his period of obligated service.

3.  While the Board can not condone the acts that led to the applicant’s discharge, it does recognize that people do change and learn from their mistakes.  Considering the applicant's post-service conduct in the service of society by helping others, anything less than a general discharge would now be inappropriate.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the interest of justice would be served by correcting the applicant’s records 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 separated from the service on with a general discharge.

2.  That the Department issue to him an General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 13 July 1982, in lieu of the UOTHC Certificate of the same date now held by him.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__RGH__  ___GFG_  _BJE____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_______ _  ______ _  _____ ___  DENY APPLICATION

		__ROBERT G. HINKLE_
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026125	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820713	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 chapter 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	
GRANT Partial	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	A94.07	
3.	A94.09	
4.		
5.		
6.