RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 04 MARCH 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003093492


         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
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson
Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member
Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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).


1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that in 1973 after his assignment in Hawaii he went AWOL (absent without leave). His marriage and finances were in dire straits and he could not see himself reporting to his next duty station. He was so disillusioned with his life he could not deal with the structured military life. He moved to Michigan, where he was apprehended by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1976, and returned to military control at Fort Carson, Colorado. He was given the option of completing his enlistment or being discharged. He opted to accept an other than honorable conditions discharge. He returned to Michigan, found a job, has remained employed for over 23 years, has remarried and has raised a family. After losing his job at a paper mill, he enrolled in a community college in order to get a degree in law enforcement; however, he cannot be considered for employment because of the nature of his discharge. He has maintained an outstanding lifestyle since his discharge, without getting into any kind of trouble. He supports his family and makes a positive impact on his community.

3. The applicant provides a list of reasons why his discharge should be upgraded as a matter of clemency to honorable; a copy of a 1973 enlisted efficiency report; a 16 May 2002 statement from the Kalamazoo Police Department indicating that he did not have a criminal record and had never been arrested; a copy of 1976 documents relating to his discharge for misconduct; a copy of college transcripts; copies of letters of support; copies of birth certificates, apparently of the applicant's children; and a copy of an employment application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 17 October 1966, completed training, and served in Vietnam for 18 months. He was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-4 on 24 October 1969. He had 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of service, and 9 days of lost time.

2. He reenlisted on 29 October 1970 and on 17 December of that year was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted for three years and was assigned to an aviation unit in Hawaii.

3. The applicant was AWOL from 27 November 1973 until his apprehension by the FBI on 9 June 1976 at Kalamazoo and returned to military control at Fort Carson.

4. On 23 June 1976 the applicant's commanding officer notified the applicant that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15, for misconduct.

5. The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration of his case before a board of officers. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive. He stated that he was willing to accept an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15.

6. The applicant made a statement to the effect that during his three years in Hawaii he had quite a few problems which affected his job performance. His marital and financial problems caused him not to report to his next duty station. He tried to take care of his problems, but was unable to do so; consequently, he went AWOL.

7. On 24 June 1976 the applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged because of misconduct by reason of AWOL or desertion.

8. On 25 June 1976 the applicant requested excess leave in order to await disposition of his discharge, and stated that he did not feel that he "should serve honorably while awaiting the discharge." His commanding officer recommended approval stating that the applicant had no desire for rehabilitation. His request was approved.

9. On 29 June 1976 the 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson Staff Judge Advocate recommended to the commanding general that the recommendation of the applicant's commander be approved and that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The approval on that recommendation is not available to the Board.

10. The applicant was discharged on 26 July 1976. He had a total of 6 years, 3 months, and 18 days of active service, and 891 days of lost time.

11. On 15 May 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. The board noted that while on leave prior to reporting to his new duty station, the applicant dealt in marijuana and that he continued to do so while AWOL. The board also noted that the applicant became apprehensive over his dealings and moved to Michigan, where he commenced working as an informant for the state police and drug enforcement agency. That board also indicated that the applicant stated he informed agencies of his AWOL status, which in turn agreed to help him with his military problem if he remained an informant, and that he agreed to that arrangement until arrested by the FBI. The board indicated that there were numerous documents to support that information. Nonetheless, the board noted that the applicant did not surface in police activities until approximately eleven months after he went AWOL and that the applicant was involved in extensive narcotics dealings. The board indicated that there were insufficient circumstances to excuse his lengthy period of desertion and determined that he was equitably separated. The board indicated that the separation authority on 29 June 1976 approved the recommendation for separation and directed that an undesirable discharge [certificate] be issued.

12. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, provides for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 15 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct by reason of absence without leave or desertion. That regulation states, in pertinent part, that an undesirable discharge may be issued for misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The applicant's prior active service, his service in Vietnam, and his good post service conduct are duly noted, as is his contention that marital and financial problems caused him to go AWOL. None of these factors, however, individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested. Notwithstanding his contention, there is no injustice because he continues to suffer the adverse consequences of the discharge that he received. This situation was entirely of his own making.

3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ KAN __ __ KLW __ __ ENA _ _ DENY APPLICATION


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.





                  __Kathleen A. Newman____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003093492
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040304
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.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.