PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           7 March 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065661

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante 		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith 		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)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable or general.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge is unjust because of the circumstances surrounding his unauthorized leave.  He contends that he received a message from his mother that his father had been injured and was unable to maintain the family business.  He claims he tried to explain his family’s situation to his company commander and chain of command; however, he did not get positive results.  He states that the Red Cross helped him get emergency leave; however, he needed more time to ensure that his family would not lose their business and home, so he went absent without leave (AWOL).  He turned himself in after he took care of his family problems.  He realizes that he messed up but his clean record of service and prior honorable service should count for something.  He also contends that he lost everything because he was trying to help his family.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 18 November 2001.   

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 26 July 1977 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Eustis, Virginia, for duty as a lifting and loading equipment operator.  On 28 January 1980, the applicant was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  On 29 January 1980, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  He was transferred to Germany on 
9 March 1980.  The applicant received the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 26 July 1977 to 25 July 1980.  

5.  Records show the applicant was granted emergency leave for 30 days on 
5 September 1981 due to illness of his mother.  He failed to return after his emergency leave had expired and commenced a period of AWOL on
7 October 1981.  He voluntarily returned to military control on 12 January 1982.  In a statement, dated 14 January 1982, the applicant indicated that he went AWOL because his mother was in the hospital and upon her release from the hospital his father broke his ankle and was unable to maintain his wood business.  

6.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 14 January 1982 for the AWOL period.

7.  On 15 January 1982, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an 

Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate, that he may be deprived of 
many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  He also acknowledged that he 
may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  Additionally, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

8.  The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

9.  On 26 January 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 February 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 4 years, 
3 months and 21 days of total active service with 97 days lost due to AWOL.

11.  There is no indication in the available records which show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge, if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is 
issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included 97 days lost and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

3.  The Board notes that the regulation authorizes the discharge authority to direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment.

4.  Based on the applicant’s prior honorable discharge, his 4 years of honorable service prior to his AWOL period, and no record of judicial or nonjudicial punishment the Board concludes that the applicant’s record is satisfactory and a general discharge is warranted.  
      
5.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the discharge under other than honorable conditions now held by the individual concerned be voided.

2.  That the individual concerned be issued a discharge essentially the same as previously held by him with the exception that his characterization of same is shown as under honorable conditions.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO___  JPI___        RKS_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_Raymond V. O’Connor_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065661	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020307	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820222	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.