RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 MARCH 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003092800

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.

2.  The applicant states that his state of mind was questionable.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 26 June 2000 statement showing that he progressed very well in a stabilization/transitional program for men recovering from chemical dependence; a certificate showing that he completed that program; a certificate showing award of the degree of Associate in Science in Liberal Technology, dated 10 January 2003; a 19 January 2001 certificate showing completion of a residential recovery program; letters on his behalf from two individuals who attest to the applicant's excellent character; a letter, apparently from either a teacher or a principal thanking the applicant for devoting his time to a college program; and four letters, all apparently from 6th grade students, thanking him for talking to them about college. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant's enlistment documents show that he enlisted in the Army for three years on 1 March 1988.  He completed infantry and airborne training and in July 1988 was assigned to an infantry company at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. 

2.  The applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement for the period 31 July 1988 to 17 August 1988.  On 1 April 1989 he was advanced to the rank of Private First Class.  In June 1989 he was transferred to an infantry company at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

3.  On 8 November 1989 the applicant apparently departed his unit in Alaska on ordinary leave.  On 20 November 1989 in the County of Middlesex in Massachusetts, the applicant and his wife executed a separation agreement, which stipulated that they would share legal custody of their three children jointly, and that the children would live with the wife; however, they would have joint custody and control of the children.   

4.  On 28 November 1989 the applicant was attached to Headquarters Company, United States Army Garrison, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, with duty at the Boston Military Entrance Processing Station, pending an application for a hardship discharge. 

5.  On 8 December 1989 the applicant went AWOL (absent without leave).  He was returned to military control at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 27 February 1990.

6.  A Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated 20 March 1990, shows that in response to the question as to why he went AWOL, the applicant stated, "lack of communication.  I was pending a hardship discharge, obtaining different information for [from] different people.  Received a phone call that my discharge paper[s] were in the mail.  I didn't bother to follow up."  On 20 March 1990 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant. 

7.  On 23 March 1990 the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He stated that he understood that he could request discharge for the good of the service because of charges which had been preferred against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He stated that he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever.  He stated that he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense charged against him.  He stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he had no desire to perform further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.     

8.  On 8 May 1990 the separation authority approved the applicant's request.  He was discharged on 17 May 1990. 

9.  On 30 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.  

10.  On 18 July 2001 the applicant had a personal appearance before the Army Discharge Review Board, again requesting that his discharge be upgraded.  On 23 July 2001 the board denied his request. 

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an administrative discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.  His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.      

2.  The applicant's good post-service conduct is noted; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.   

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   
  
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS  __  __MMB__  __PHM _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		_____John N. Slone_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003092800	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040311	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.