RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070007414 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. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann Chairperson Mr. Dean A. Camarella Member Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states that he feels his discharge should be upgraded so that he will be eligible for employment in the job field in which he is interested and qualified. He also states that he would like to have his discharged changed so that he will be able to receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 March 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 88M1O (Motor Transport Operator). 2. On 6 April 2005, charges were preferred against the applicant for two violations of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), being absence without leave (AWOL) during the period from on or about 15 November 2004 to 19 February 2005 (96 days); and from 28 February to on or about 1 March 2005 (1 day); and for violation of Article 90, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer. 3. On 14 April 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. 5. On 18 April 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable conditions Discharge. On 29 April 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 10 months and 13 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 97 days of time lost due to AWOL. 6. On 28 July 2006, 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 90, for willfully disobeying a lawful order of a superior commissioned officer, other than in a time of war, is a punitive discharge and confinement for 5 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 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 of the facts of the case. 3. 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 the aforementioned requirement. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _QAS __ _DAC___ __JCR___ 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. _Jeffrey C. Redmann___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070920 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 144 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.