RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


           IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            13 APRIL 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099164


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Roger W. Able                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn II           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |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).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

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

2.  The applicant states that he would like to re-enter the military and
was not aware that by "not staying at [the] detention center that [he]
would not be able to re-enter [the] armed services later.”  He states it
was never explained to him at the time of his discharge that he would not
be able to return to military service.

3.  He states that he was an exemplary soldier and never had any
disciplinary problems.  He states that he only made "the one mistake of
absence without leave."

4.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 17 April 1991, at the age of 20, with 12 years of formal
education.  He successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual
training and in October 1991 was assigned to the 8th Support Group in
Italy.  He was awarded two Army Achievement Medals during his tour of duty
in Italy and was promoted to pay grade E-4.

2.  The applicant returned to the United States in October 1993 and on
17 November 1993 departed AWOL (absent without leave).  He was dropped from
the rolls of the Army in December 1993.  On 4 May 1994 he surrendered to
military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

3.  When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature
and consequences of the other than honorable conditions discharge which he
might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all
veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived
of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He
did not submit any statements on his own behalf.






4.  His request was approved, and on 24 June 1994 he was discharged under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  His service was
characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

5.  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 at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

6.  In December 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the
applicant's petition to upgrade the character of his discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was unaware that he would not be
able to return to military service as a result of requesting discharge in
lieu of trial by court-martial is not supported by any evidence in
available records, or submitted by the applicant.  The evidence does show,
however, that the applicant consulted legal counsel and acknowledged the
ramifications of an other than honorable conditions discharge, at the time
he requested separation.  His successful completion of training and two
awards of the Army Achievement Medal is an indication that he was capable
of honorable service.  The fact that he now wishes to return to military
service is not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of the character of that
discharge.

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

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RWA__  __RJO__  __YM    __  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.





            ____ Roger W. Able_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099164                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040413                                |
|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.                      |                                        |