PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000043476

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 under other than honorable (UOTH) discharge to an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant states that after the death of his father he became the primary financial supporter of his mother, sister and two nephews prior to his being drafted.  Once in the Army, he sent his money home but incurred pay problems when he moved to Fort Hood, Texas.  He tried to get help but for several months he did not get paid.  He was denied leave to attend the funeral of an aunt and was denied a compassionate assignment to be near his family.  He was, however, granted two weeks leave.  When he went home on leave and saw the situation his family was in he immediately found a job and did not return to Fort Hood.  He knows this was wrong, but does not believe it makes him an undesirable person.

4.  In support of his appeal the applicant has submitted a statement from his sister.  She recounts that their father died when the applicant was 17 years of age and soon after she moved back home with her two children.  Her brother (the applicant) struggled to care for all of them.  She states that while in the Army, he sent his pay home every month and continued to soldier even when he was denied a pass to attend his aunt’s funeral.  When the applicant came home on leave he saw how serious things were and went to work.  The sister admits that it was wrong for the applicant to go absent without leave (AWOL), but to take care of one’s family is an honorable thing to do.

5.  The applicant submitted additional letters of support from friends and employers.  They all state that the applicant has helped children learn to read and write, clothed and fed fatherless children, helped veterans and volunteered at a hospital for children with Downs Syndrome.

6.  In 1993 the applicant was notified by the Education Service Region of Cook County Schools (Illinois) that he had received a qualifying score for the General Educational Development Test.

7.  He also submits a police name check conducted by the Illinois State Police that shows he has had no arrests, convictions, citations or traffic violations.

8.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted on 9 April 1971.  He received a waiver for limited education – 11 years, low Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score – 21, a poor employment record and a moral waiver for conviction of auto theft and chronic truancy.  The applicant’s listed general test (GT) score was 78, and his mental category was IV, the lowest acceptable category.  He was trained as a cook and assigned to Fort Hood Texas.  He was separated on 18 July 1972 with an UOTH discharge. 

9.  On 25 September 1971 the applicant was AWOL from his unit and subsequently surrendered to military authorities on 16 April 1972.

10.  On 19 April 1972 charges were preferred against him for AWOL with a recommendation for trial by special court-martial. 

11.  On 20 April 1992, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could receive a UOTH discharge and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  On 30 May 1972, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, on 18 July 1972, he was discharged.

13.  On 30 April 1975 and 25 November 1977 the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

14.  On 18 June 1993 and 21 November 1997 this Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under duress or coercion.  

2.  Notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge, the Board is of the opinion that it was the applicant’s immaturity and inappropriate reaction to authority and disappointment that lead to his AWOL rather than any intentional action to avoid his obligations.  The Army requires that all potential recruits take tests.  The results are used as predictors of behaviors, aptitudes and learning abilities.  The records reflected that the applicant had moral, employment, education and learning shortcomings.  Given these shortcomings and the waivers of his educational and moral qualifications, it was not unpredictable that when faced with disappointment and personal problems he might make an inappropriate decision.  When the Army waived its standards it accepted some of the responsibility when such a person behaves as his scores predicted he would.

3.  The Board can change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  The applicant’s service conduct highlights the behavior of an under educated and immature person.  On the other hand, the applicant’s post service conduct shows that he has apparently turned his life around and has become a contributing member of society.  In evaluating the applicant’s previous short, but good service, and inappropriate decision making against his excellent-post service conduct, the Board believes it is unduly harsh to continue to stigmatize him with an undesirable discharge.

4.  Given the applicant’s prolonged AWOL offense it would be inequitable to characterize his service as fully honorable; however, his positive post-service conduct indicate that the undesirable discharge may have served its purpose and that a general discharge is more appropriate. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate dated 18 July 1972 in lieu of the Undesirable Discharge Certificate he now holds.

BOARD VOTE:  

__cmf___  ___fne___  ___cjs __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_________Calvin M. Fowler________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043476	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.