MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044067

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge and that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to show that he completed his General Education Development (GED).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was a good soldier until he was transferred to a maintenance unit in Germany in which almost 99% of the people were using drugs.  He further states that he did not get along well with his sergeant and complained to his commander.  His commander informed him that he did not care as long as the work was done and suggested that he take a leave of absence to figure out what he wanted to do.  He goes on to state that he went back to the United States on leave and attempted to get reassigned to another unit.  He also states that he signed in to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and was told that if he wanted a transfer he would have to convey the information to the military police authorities in order to get a transfer.  After doing so, he was informed that he could not be transferred and that he would be sent back to the same unit.  He continues by stating that he returned to his unit, packed up his things and left.  He remained absent until he tired of authorities harassing his family and turned himself in to military authorities.  After being informed that he would again be returned to the same unit in Germany, he again departed and remained absent because he no longer wanted anything to do with the military.  He contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he always did his job and because he had no prior disciplinary record.  He also states that his DD Form 214 incorrectly indicates that he did not complete his GED when in fact he has completed it twice.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in Kansas City, Missouri on 12 July 1972 for a period of 3 years and assignment to the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas.  A t the time of his enlistment, his contract indicates that he had completed 3 years of high school.

He was honorably discharged on 23 April 1974 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted the following day for a period of 6 years and stabilization at Fort Riley for 1 year.  On 12 July 1978 he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment and reenlisted the following day for a period of 4 years.

On 4 August 1979, while serving in a maintenance unit in Germany in the pay grade of E-4, the applicant was granted 32 days of ordinary leave to the United States with a return date of 4 September 1979.  He was granted a 5-day extension of his leave at Fort Leavenworth on 5 September to submit a reassignment request, with a return date to his unit of 10 September 1979.

On 8 September 1979 he was admitted to a hospital in Kansas City for injuries sustained as a victim of an assault.  He was referred to the hospital at Fort Leavenworth and was granted convalescent leave until 17 September 1979.

The applicant reported to military police AWOL apprehension authorities at Fort Leavenworth on 18 September 1979 and was issued a provisional pass back to his unit.  However, the applicant failed to return to his unit and was reported as AWOL on 18 September 1979 and dropped from the rolls on 25 October 1979. 
The commander’s report of inquiry regarding the applicant’s unauthorized absence indicates that the applicant came to the unit with numerous debts to stateside institutions and the Army and that he returned to the United States on leave to attend an alimony hearing and to settle some of his debts.

He remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Kansas City after receiving an anonymous call that the applicant was residing with his grandfather in Kansas City.  He was returned to military control on 21 December 1979 and was transported to Fort Carson, Colorado.  He went AWOL again on 15 January 1980.

The available records show that the applicant was discharged in absentia on temporary records on 26 March 1984, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to misconduct – serious offense- desertion.  He had served 7 years, 3 months and 1 day of total active service and had 1,620 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His DD Form 214 prepared at the time of separation indicates that he had no high school diploma of GED equivalency.

A review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) shows no record of any disciplinary action being taken against the applicant.  A review of his evaluation reports prior to his last assignment to Germany indicate that the applicant was at best an average soldier and that he had a negative attitude towards the Army.  There is also no indication in the available records to show that he participated in or completed his GED.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and desertion.  It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he completed his GED is not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the available evidence of record.  Accordingly, without documentation to show that he completed his GED prior to his separation, there is no basis for the Board to direct a change to his DD Form 214 to reflect otherwise.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____fe __  ___lem__  ___hbo__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044067	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/03/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT/A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  626	144.6000/A60.00/DESERTION	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.