MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           30 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003091248

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge is inappropriate or unjust because it was due to an incident that happened during the time of his active duty.  He states that it reflects upon my 129 days of absence without leave (AWOL).  He goes on to state that he had a stateside swap due to the disabilities and sicknesses of his parents; however, he failed to report to his new duty station at the desired time.  He states that when he reported to his new duty station he believed that he would receive disciplinary action; however, he was chaptered out of the military with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He states that he recently had his discharge upgraded to a general discharge and that he is not truly familiar with what benefits he can receive with a general discharge.  He states that he knows that it will keep him from being able to receive educational benefits, which he applied for under the Montgomery GI Bill.  

He continues by stating that as a result of the time that he spent in the Army, he has grown up and matured and that he has very good character.  He states that he believes in his country and he is hoping that his country will give him a second chance because everyone makes mistakes.  He states that he now wishes that he had been a better soldier as well as a better person and he asks this Board and the United States Army to please show him mercy.  In support of his appeal, he submits 24 letters from friends, family members and members of his community attesting to his good character and post-service conduct.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 27 August 1991, he enlisted in the Army at Fort Benning, Georgia, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a fighting vehicle infantryman/dragon gunner and on 6 January 1992, he was transferred to Fort Irwin, California.  On 1 March 1992, he was promoted to the pay grade of 
E-2 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 27 August 1992.  He was transferred back to Fort Benning, Georgia on 22 July 1993.

The applicant went AWOL on 4 August 1993 and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 19 September 1993.  There is no evidence in the available records that shows that disciplinary action was taken for this period of AWOL.  However, he went AWOL again on 24 September 1993 and he remained absent until 10 January 1994.

On 13 January 1994, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL.  He was notified of the pending charges and after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu 

of trial by court-martial.  Along with his request for discharge, he submitted a statement in his own behalf indicating that he had tried to get an compassionate reassignment closer to his home because his parents were ill and had medical problems.  He stated that his attempt was unsuccessful and he tried again and got a stateside swap to Fort Benning, Georgia.  He concluded by stating that he went AWOL because he was still not close enough to home where he would be close enough to commute back and fourth to care for his parents.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 11 April 1994.  Accordingly, on 23 May 1994, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 25 days of total active service and he had 155 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 19 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge from under other than honorable condition to a general discharge.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the contentions made by the applicant.  However, he was AWOL for 155 days and while the Board understands his actions, it does not condone his going AWOL.

4.  On 19 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded his discharge to a general discharge and considering his acts of indiscipline, his discharge now appropriately reflects the overall character of his service, as his service was not completely honorable.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mm ___  __mvt___  __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091248	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1994/05/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.