APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for discharge is incorrect because he never went AWOL. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his records were sent to the deserter point at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana by mistake because he was never AWOL. He claims that he went home waiting for orders and he never received any instructions on where to go even when he called. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He entered the Regular Army on 20 August 1968 at age 19 for a 2 year period. The applicant successfully completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and advanced individual training, in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), at Fort Polk, Louisiana. On 10 December 1968, Fort Polk issued special order number 312 which instructed the applicant to proceed on a 3 week temporary duty (TDY) assignment to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for training as an Army personnel carrier (M-113) driver; in addition, the order contained information which advised the applicant of his follow on assignment to the overseas replacement station in Oakland, California and his ultimate assignment to the United States Army Republic of Vietnam transportation detachment. On 23 January 1969, upon completion of TDY, Fort Knox issued special order number 23 which amended the applicant's original movement order. This amendment provided specific reporting information which authorized the applicant to take 17 days of leave upon completion of his temporary duty and directed him to report to Oakland, for further assignment to Vietnam, not later than 17 February 1969. The applicant became AWOL upon his failure to report to the overseas replacement detachment in Oakland, California on 17 February 1969. The record is void of any information supporting the applicant's contention that he was sent home pending orders or any indication of him attempting to clarify his status prior to his return to military control in September 1981. On 30 September 1981 the applicant's unit commander, at the personnel control facility, Fort Ord, California, notified the applicant that he was being considered for elimination from the service for misconduct, under the provisions of paragraph 14-23b, AR 635-200, and advised him of his rights. The applicant consulted with a legal advisor and elected to: waive consideration of his case before a board of officers; waive personal appearance before a board of officers; and elected to not make a statement on his own behalf. He also acknowledged his understanding that misconduct was the basis for separation and that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on his receipt of a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 24 February 1982 the applicant's unit commander initiated separation action for misconduct based on the applicant's unauthorized absence between 17 February 1969 and 17 September 1981. Two intermediate level commanders concurred with the action, the first on 24 February 1982 and the second on 31 March 1982. On 7 April 1982 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions and that misconduct-AWOL be cited as the reason for separation. Accordingly, on 20 August 1982 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 3 months, 12 days of active military service, and accruing 12 years, and 7 months of lost time. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all 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. 4. 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director