PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            30 October 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058307

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 military records by upgrading his discharge.  He also asks to appear before the Board in a formal hearing.

3.  The applicant states “I am disabled presently and go to Tuskegee VA hospital for help with my disability problem.  I am also a volunteer at the Tuskegee hospital, helping other veterans to get to and from their appointments.”  He provides the names of people he helps while doing this volunteer work at the local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital.  In effect, he contends that post service factors should be considered in reviewing his case.  

4.  The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 1 February 
2001 review of his request (AR200046297) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.

5.  The applicant’s submission is new argument that requires Board consideration. 

6.  Associated with the original application are testimonial letters that were mentioned but not described in the MOC.  The applicant simply included them without offering any suggestion of a post-service argument.  Because he currently raises this issue, those letters are evidence that should also be considered.  

7.  The testimonial letters comprise the following:

A minister states that he has known the applicant personally for 10 years.  He writes that the applicant is of sound moral character and exemplifies Christian behavior.  He works at the VA’s Incentive Therapy Program where he has earned the respect of his peers.

The manager of the Central Alabama VA Center’s Voluntary and Recreation Services writes that the applicant has been a volunteer driver since February 2000.  He has to deal with many types of personalities and many types of ailments.  He accepts these responsibilities readily and without complaint.  On two occasions he has used his own money to buy fuel for the van. 

8.  The original MOC reflects the applicant’s first enlistment as 2 years, 9 months and 20 days with a single nonjudicial punishment that reduced him to pay grade E-3 on 11 May 1978.  He soldiered back and was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 

1 March 1979.  Following his 3 October 1979 reenlistment the applicant served without incident until his first absence without leave (AWOL) on 13 May 1980.  This was to prove the beginning of a series of AWOLs that ultimately resulted in his bad conduct discharge. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant indicates that he is receiving some kind of help from the VA.  However, his bad conduct discharge would bar him from receiving a disability compensation award. 

2.  The Board notes that the applicant served almost 2 years and 10 months of his initial 3-year enlistment before re-enlisting.  Additionally, his behavior was offense free for another 7 months after his re-enlistment.  This significant period of service, more than his initial enlistment, taken together with the evidence of his post service volunteer service to other veterans indicates that the current situation is now unjust. 

3.  The applicant was responsible for the misconduct that led to the bad conduct discharge and the discharge should not be changed, but the applicant should be credited with completion of his first enlistment with an appropriate characterization.  Therefore his 2 October 1979 discharge should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.

4.  The Board does not normally investigate cases.  Each applicant has the responsibility to obtain the evidence to substantiate his or her own request.  The Board will not contact the individuals the applicant listed.
 
5.  There is no statutory or regulatory right to a formal hearing.  The Board receives over 15,000 applications each year, but normally grants only approximately 20 formal hearings a year.  Formal hearings are granted only when it is determined that a case is so complex, or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was issued a complete and unconditional honorable discharge on 2 October 1979. 

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

BOARD VOTE:

__CLA__  ___AAO__  __HBO_  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    __Celia L. Adplphi_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058307	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011030	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	MODIFY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	105.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.