RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006109 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Dean L. Turnbull Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Thomas A. Pagant Chairperson Mr. Eric N. Anderson Member Mr. Paul M. Smith 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 reconsideration to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was treated very unfairly when he addressed his problems with his chain of command, so his only recourse was to deal with the situation himself. He states it may have been the wrong choice but at the time he felt it was the only alternative. He states he was too young and did not know how to emotionally deal with such matters in a marriage relationship. 3. The applicant provides a written statement, dated 7 April 2007. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060007930, on 15 March 2007. 2. In the original decision the ABCMR found that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. He was absent without leave numerous times and was reduced from the rank of sergeant E-5 to specialist E-4. The applicant consulted with defense counsel and voluntarily, in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request was approved by the general court-martial convening authority. 3. On 23 December 1971, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined that the applicant merited an upgrade of his discharge from undesirable to general (under honorable conditions). 4. The applicant provided new arguments which require that his case be reconsidered by the ABCMR. 5. In the statement that the applicant provided, he said that his first sergeant was unprofessional and rude towards him when he addressed his dilemma concerning him and his wife. His first sergeant then restricted him to Post. He states, in effect, if his first sergeant would have addressed the issues and assisted him in his dilemma as opposed to conducting himself unprofessionally, all of his issues could have been avoided. He states that he told his first sergeant, "I love my wife and want my marriage to work." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant was over 20 years old when he was discharged. He had been promoted to a noncommissioned officer rank (sergeant). Therefore, the applicant’s contention that he was too young to emotionally deal with his marital relationship is not accepted. 3. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to show that his chain of command and first sergeant were unprofessional and rude when dealing with his problems. 4. As such, he is not entitled to correction of his records to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 5. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, 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. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___tap___ ___ena__ ____pms 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060007930, dated 15 March 2007. ________Thomas A. Pagant________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070006109 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20070013 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.