PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  5 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046956

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he was told at the time he signed his discharge, that it would be an undesirable discharge under general conditions.  He also states that his middle name is “William” not “Wesley”.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

4.  The applicant’s military records show he enlisted on 19 July 1971.

5.  On 10 September 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 August 1971 to 4 September 1971 
(25 days).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 30 days restriction.

6.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 31 January 1972 for being AWOL from 20 September 1971 to 25 January 1972 (128 days). 

7.  On 22 February 1972, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 16 March 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on the same day.  He had a total
of 1 month and 27 days of creditable service and 167 days of lost time due to AWOL.

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows his middle name as “Wesley”.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows his middle name as “William”.  Item 1 (First Name - Middle Name-Last Name) of the applicant’s DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History), dated 12 July 1971, which was authenticated in his own hand, shows his middle name as “William”.  Item 1 (Last Name - First Name - Middle Name) of the applicant’s DD Form 1584 (National Agency Check Request), dated 19 July 1971, shows his middle name as 
“William”. 

11.  Item 17c (Date of Entry) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows his date of entry as “17 JUL 71” which is incorrect.  Item 6 (DATE OF ENL/INDUC) of the applicant’s DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States), which was authenticated in his own hand, shows his date of enlistment as “19 JUL 71”.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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
have been 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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his discharge “would be an undesirable discharge under general conditions”.  However, there was no such discharge authorized by regulations in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation or authorized by current regulations.  

2.  The Board also noted that in accordance with regulations in effect at that time,
the issuance of an undesirable discharge was appropriate in his case.  The Board also noted that the applicant did not receive a discharge under honorable conditions because the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge.

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were 
appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.  Further, the applicant has provided no evidence that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

5.  The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant’s middle name was “William” when he enlisted in the Army in 1971.  However, through an administrative error, his middle name was incorrectly recorded on his DD Form
214.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to correct his DD Form 
214, at this time to show his middle name as “William” instead of “Wesley”.

6.  The evidence of record clearly shows that he entered active duty on “19 July 1971.  However, through an administrative error, his date of entry was entered as “17 JUL 71” instead of “19 JUL 71” on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to correct item 17c (Date of Entry) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry “19 JUL 71”.

7.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing in item 1 (Last Name - First Name - Middle Name) the entry “William” instead of “Wesley” and in item 17c (Date of Entry) the entry 
“19 JUL 71” on his DD Form 214.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__AC___  __JM____  __AR___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Ann M. Campbell___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046956	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001205	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720316	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.