PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:          28 OCTOBER 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087241

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. N. Troup		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 the basis for his 1969 “discharge” from the ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) Program at the University of Arizona be corrected to show that he was discharged by reason of being a conscientious objector and not for failing to maintain requirements for enrollment.

3.  The applicant states that he began looking into the basis for his discharge from the ROTC program in 1992 and contacted several military officials who were unable to assist him because his ROTC records were no longer available.  He states that in 1969 he contacted his commanding officer and requested release from the ROTC program because he “could not kill and that [he] could not order a man under [his] command to kill.”  He states, in effect, that although the paragraph cited as the “reason” for his discharge was correct, the narrative reason was incorrect.

4.  In support of his request the applicant submits copies of documents associated with his previous attempt to resolve the issue, copies of Army Regulations in effect at the time of his discharge, copies of documents associated with his disenrollment from the ROTC Program and discharge from the United States Army Control Group (ROTC), as well as a March 1993 letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel which concludes that his discharge “could only have been based on status as a conscientious objector.”

5.  There were no military records available to the Board other than those documents provided by the applicant.  Those document indicate that on 
11 February 1969 the applicant requested “immediate discharge from the Sixth U.S. [United States] Army Control Group (ROTC).  The request does not cite a reason for the applicant’s submission.

6.  A 12 February 1969 letter from the Sixth U.S. Army ROTC Instructor Group Senior Division at the University of Arizona notified the applicant that he was being “discharge” effective 11 February 1969 as “a result of your failure to maintain requirements for enrollment.”

7.  A 12 February 1969 Department of Defense Form 44 (Record of Military Status of Registrant) notes that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program under the provisions of paragraph 2-23a(5), of Army Regulation 145-(unreadable) for “failure to maintain requirements for enrollment.”

8.  Orders published on 19 February 1969 “discharged” the applicant from the Sixth US Army Control Group (ROTC) effective 11 February 1969 and cited the reason for discharge as “disenrolled from ROTC program, para 3-25a(5), AR [Army Regulation] 145-1.”

9.  As part of the applicant’s attempt to resolve the basis for his 1969 discharge from the ROTC program, the applicant was provided extracts from various regulations which were in effect at the time of his discharge; including an extract from Army Regulation 145-1.  While the extract was dated 2 July 1971, information contained in the 1993 letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel confirmed that the 1971 version of Army Regulation 145-1 was also in effect in 1969.

10.  The letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel also notes that the applicant’s “disenrollment under the provisions of paragraph 3-25a(5), AR 145-1 could only have been based on status as a conscientious objector.”

11.  Army Regulation 145-1, dated 2 July 1971, does not contain a paragraph 2-23a(5) as cited on the applicant’s Department of Defense Form 44 and paragraph 2-25a(5) does pertain to conscientious objectors.  Failure to maintain requirements for enrollment would have been cited as paragraph 2-25a(6).

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s ROTC records no longer exist, the Board is satisfied that the evidence does support a conclusion that the applicant was disenrolled and discharged from the ROTC program under the provision of paragraph 2-25a(5) of Army Regulation 145-1.  The entry of paragraph 2-23a(5) on his Department of Defense Form 44 appears to have been a typographical error in view of the fact that Army Regulation 145-1 does not contain a paragraph 2-23a(5).

2.  If the applicant had not been maintaining requirements for enrollment in the ROTC program there would have been no reason for him to submit a request for discharge.  The action could have been accomplished without his consent.  However, the fact that the applicant did submit such a request, and the fact that his separation documents consistently cited a subparagraph (5) and not subparagraph (6) further supports a conclusion that his separation was the result of his conscientious objector status and not his failure to maintain requirements for enrollment.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the Board is satisfied that the basis for the applicant’s release from the ROTC program was under the provisions of paragraph 2-23a(5) of Army Regulation 145-1 as a result of his conscientious objector status.  It would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice and equity, to correct his records accordingly by amending his discharge orders and his Department of Defense Form 44.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the 1969 discharge orders and his 1969 Department of Defense Form 44 to show that the reason for his disenrollment and subsequent discharge from the ROTC program was based on his status as a conscientious objector vice as a result of failing to maintain requirements for enrollment.

BOARD VOTE:  

__RJW __  __LDS__  __MJNT_  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Raymond J. Wagner_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087241	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20031028	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.