ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2002083313
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 June 2003       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002083313

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration 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:

| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | | Chairperson
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | | Member
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | | Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant did not provide an explanation with his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the California Army National Guard on 29 September 1977 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty for training on 
9 December 1977 and was honorably released from active duty on 16 May 1978 to complete his remaining service obligation.  

The applicant's service personnel records show that he was absent from scheduled unit training assemblies during the periods 6-7 February 1982, 20-21 February 1982, 6-7 March 1982 and 6-7 November 1982.  He also received letters of notification for these unexcused absences. 

On 28 March 1983, the applicant was reduced in rank to private/pay grade E-2 due to inefficiency.

On 24 May 1983, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, chapter 7, for other good and sufficient reasons.  The applicant was not separated as a Reserve of the United States but was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve to complete his reserve obligation.  On 1 October 1984, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 from the Ready Reserve with a general discharge.

Item 19 (Remarks) on the applicant's NGB [National Guard Bureau] Form 22  (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows that he had 16 periods of being absent without leave (AWOL) (6-7 February 1982, 20-21 February 1982, 
6-7 May 1982 and 6-7 November 1982).

National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the personnel management of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 7, paragraph 
7-10m provides for discharge from the Army National Guard of the State only for enlisted personnel with a remaining Reserve service obligation for other good and sufficient reasons.  Separation by reason of other good and sufficient reasons occurs when a member has completed basic training or 8 weeks One Station Unit Training, but has a remaining military service obligation.  If 

discharged for this reason, a soldier may be transferred to the Inactive National Guard at the option of the State Adjutant General or, if discharged from the Army National Guard of the State only, to the USAR Control Group (annual training).  

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.

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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

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.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included 
16 periods of AWOL for unexcused absences from drills and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  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

MKP____  REB____  FCJ_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002083313
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20030624
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830524
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 600-200 Chapter 7
DISCHARGE REASON | For other good and sufficient reasons
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 110.0200
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |