PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           22 February 2001  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050632

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he would like his discharge upgraded to honorable.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 10 August 1989 for a period of 4 years.  He served as a tank crewman in Southwest Asia from
7 October 1990 through 8 March 1991 and was honorably discharged on 
13 December 1992.  He immediately reenlisted on 14 December 1992 for a period of 3 years.  

5.  The applicant received the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. 

6.  The applicant went AWOL on 6 July 1995 and returned to military control on 
12 September 1995.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 
14 September 1995 for this AWOL period.

7.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate, that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA.  Additionally, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated that he went AWOL due to excessive harassment from his squad leader and his marital and drinking problems.  The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved.

8.  On 25 September 1995 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 12 October 1995 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 5 years, 11 months and 27 days of total active service and had 67 days of lost time due to AWOL.

10.  The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable on 13 December 2000.

11.  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 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, the separation authority may direct a general discharge, if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. 

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 (emphasis added), 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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s records of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

3.  The Board notes that the regulation authorizes the discharge authority to direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment.

4.  Based on the applicant’s prior honorable discharge, his 5 ½ years of honorable service prior to his AWOL period, no record of judicial or nonjudicial punishment and his Southwest Asia service the Board concludes that the applicant’s record is satisfactory and a general discharge is warranted.  
  
5.  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 that the individual concerned received a general discharge on 12 October 1995. 

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

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO____  TSK____  SK______  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050632	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19951012	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200 (General Discharge)	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.