RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012670 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. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Kathleen A. Newman Chairperson Mr. David K. Haasenritter Member Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas Member 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, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general. 2. The applicant states that he has grown and matured a lot over the past 18 years and would like a chance to return to the military and serve the way he should have done the first time. He further states that unless his discharge is upgraded he cannot enlist in the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS). 3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), a police record check, a security clearance application, authorizations for release of information, and six letters of support from employers, co-workers, clergy, and friends. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 February 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76V1O (Material Storage and Handling Specialist). 2. On 17 March 1988, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86 for being absent without leave on four occasions between 26 October 1987 and 14 March 1988, totaling 133 days of lost time. 3. On 17 March 1988, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised that the government had not received the necessary documentation and/or records with which to obtain a conviction by a court-martial. This was not due to any fault of the government but merely to the time required to request and mail the documents and records. Further, he was advised by his military counsel that he could not completely advise him without these records. The applicant indicated that he understood and waived all defenses that may become known had his defense counsel been able to review his records. The applicant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily declared that he had been AWOL as charged, for administrative purposes only so that he may be processed out of the United States Army, and receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 4. The applicant’s request for discharge was forwarded through his chain of command with recommendations for approval; however, the final approval documentation is not available for review. 5. On 11 May 1988, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had completed a total of 10 months and 18 days of creditable active military service and accrued 133 days of time lost due to AWOL. 6. On 9 November 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 trail by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 30 days is a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 1 year. 9. The letters of support provided by the applicant describe him as a hard working individual who has been an excellent worker, husband, and father since leaving the military. His employers commend his work and recommend that he be permitted to enlist in the ARNGUS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record indicates the applicant had committed an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met. The rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 2. The type of discharge and reason therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. The applicant’s good post-service conduct is noted. However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated and excessive acts of indiscipline during his military service. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __DKH__ __LMD __ __KAN __ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that 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. __Kathleen A. Newman____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060012670 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070327 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19720829 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR .635-200 .ch 10. . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 144.7000 2. 100.0900 3. 4. 5. 6.