RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           27 JANUARY 2004                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090618

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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.  In effect, the applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable or general, with a corresponding change to his reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states that he was informed while at the personnel control facility (PCF) that he would be able to have his discharge corrected after six months.  He knows people whose misconduct has been worse than his own, and who have "better" discharges and RE codes.   

3.  The applicant provides no evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for four years on 21 March 2000, completed training, and in August 2000 was assigned to an engineer company at Fort Stewart, Georgia.  The applicant was AWOL (absent without leave) from     17 August 2000 through 15 September 2000.  On 25 September 2000 the applicant again went AWOL.  He was apprehended by civil authorities in Melbourne, Florida on 12 December 2002 , returned to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and assigned to the Special Processing Company, United States Army Personnel Control Facility, on that same date.  

2.  On 21 December 2000 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.  The applicant consulted with counsel on that same date, and stated that he knowingly, willing, and voluntarily declared that he was AWOL from          25 September 2000 to 12 December 2000.  He stated that he made the admission for administrative purposes only so that he could process out of the Army.  He stated that he realized that he might be given an other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 21 December 2000 the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, because of charges which has been preferred against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He stated that he acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offense charged and that he was guilty of the charge.  He also stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, and that he had no desire to perform further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and the consequences of the other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

4.  The applicant was placed in an excess leave status after submitting his request.  The separation authority ultimately approved the applicant's request and he was discharged on 14 January 2002.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows a reentry code      of "4."

5.  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.  

6.  Army Regulation 601-210, then in effect, prescribes the eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons into the Regular Army and the Army Reserve.  That regulation prescribes prior service reentry eligibility (RE) codes and states that code RE-4 applies to persons separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  Code RE-4 applies to a person discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. 

7.  On 28 August 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.   

8.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant had a personal appearance before the Army Discharge Review Board and testified in his own behalf.  The board again denied his request.  It noted that the applicant had not provided any explanation for his lengthy period of AWOL, nor did he present any evidence in mitigation.  The board noted that the characterization of service for the type of discharge he received was normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  The board noted that the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4, which indicates that he was discharged with a nonwaivable disqualifier and that he was ineligible for reenlistment.  The board determined that the reason for his discharge and the characterization of his service were both proper and equitable.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was AWOL on two separate occasions, the last for an extended length of time.  The evidence shows that he did not voluntarily surrender to authorities, but was apprehended by civil authorities.  Court-martial charges were preferred, and were warranted, against him.  

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, even after appropriate consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show that he wanted to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.  

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  The reentry code of "4" on his DD Form 214 is correct and appropriate.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__AAO __  __LE   __  __YM ___  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.

		___Arthur A. Omartian____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090618	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040127	
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.