PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040436

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson		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 his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.   

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes his discharge was inequitable because he did a good job until the time of the events which led to his discharge. He claims that his wife left him and took two of their three children with her.  She left one child, a five year old, at home for him to care for.  He attempted to continue to work under these circumstances for awhile but decided after a few weeks that he had to find his other children.  He claims that he did not want to mess up his Army career but he was not thinking correctly at the time and felt he had to go looking for his other two children.  He claims that during his discharge processing all he could think about was finding his other two children and he was not concerned with the consequences of his actions.  In support of his application, he provides four character reference statements from friends and 
co-workers attesting to his post service accomplishments as a productive member of his community.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 25 May 1979, while serving in Germany, he reenlisted and began serving on the enlistment under review.  At the time of this reenlistment the applicant had already completed over 9 years of honorable active service and held the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG).

5.  The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows that he had completed a 15 month combat tour in Vietnam in 1971 and a 36 month overseas tour in Germany in 1979.  Block 
9 (awards, decorations, & campaigns) confirms that during his tenure in service he earned the following awards and decorations:  the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); the Vietnam Service Medal with Four Bronze Service Stars (VSM/w 4 bss); the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM); the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC/w palm); two Good Conduct Medals (GCMDLs); two Army Commendation Medals (ARCOMs); and the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

6.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File OMPF) contains no record of nonjudicial punishment or court-martial and reveals no disciplinary history or derogatory information prior to the incident which led to his discharge.  

7.  On 5 May 1980, the applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Carson, Colorado and he remained away for 135 days until returning to military control on 16 September 1980.  A court-martial charge was preferred against him for this offense 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.  Included in his discharge request packet was a statement from the applicant explaining the circumstances surrounding his going AWOL.  He indicated that his wife had left him and taken two of his three children, however, she had left their five year old child for him to care for.  He stated that he wanted out of the Army because he did not know where his wife was and he had no one to take care of his five year old child.  Finally, he commented that he intended to look for and find his other two children because they were the most important thing in the world to him and he had concluded that he would be unable to do this if he remained in the Army.  

9.  On 30 October 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for an administrative separation, directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  On 21 January 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge he had completed 1 year, 3 months, 13 days of his current enlistment, a total of 
11 years of active military service, and he had accrued 137 days of time lost due to AWOL.  

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 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.  

11.  In support of his application, four friends and co-workers submitted character reference statements in the applicant’s behalf.  These references indicate, in effect, that the applicant’s post service conduct has been excellent and that he is an excellent worker, family man, and a contributing member of his community.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s discharge was properly accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  However, the Board finds that the characterization of service is too harsh.   

2.  The record shows that the preponderance of the applicant’s active military service, which includes a combat tour in Vietnam for which he earned the CIB, was honorable.  Further, his OMPF contains no derogatory information or any record of disciplinary problems prior to the incident which led to his discharge and the Board finds the family problems being experienced by the applicant at the time of his discharge a mitigating factor in his AWOL related misconduct.

3.  Finally, the Board notes that the applicant’s post service conduct has been excellent, as evidenced by the supporting character reference statements, as attested to by friends and co-workers who comment on his post service accomplishments as a contributing member of the community.

4.  The Board finds that applicant’s AWOL related misconduct does diminish the character of his service, for the enlistment under review, below that warranting a fully honorable discharge.  However, in view of the mitigating factors for his misconduct and in recognition of the honorable nature of the preponderance of his military service and his excellent post service conduct, the Board concludes that his discharge should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions at this time.  

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 showing that the individual concerned received a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 21 January 1981, in lieu of the UOTHC discharge of the same date he now holds.  

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___ewl __  ___tp___  ___cjp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Ernest W. Lutz, Jr._____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040436	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/01/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.