RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:



      BOARD DATE:           25 November 2003





      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086509


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.      |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Lana E. McGlynn               |     |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 period of service between 28 April 1965
and 14 December 1966 be considered as complete and separate and that he be
issued a DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) for that period.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was drafted, with a 2-year
period of obligated service, served 1 year and 7 months and received an
honorable discharge on 14 December 1966.  He requests this correction in
order to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a Certification of Military Service
for the period 28 April 1965 through 14 December 1966, a copy of DD Form 4
(Enlisted Record), and a copy of an 8 October 2002 VA letter denying him
benefits.

4.  He gives the discovery date of the error or injustice as 8 October
2002, the date of the VA denial letter.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant entered active duty on 28 April 1965 and reenlisted on 15
December 1966.

2.  At the time of entry the applicant signed an Acknowledgement of Service
Obligation, which states that he had a two-year active duty service
obligation.  If otherwise qualified, he would then serve in the Ready
Reserve for four additional years for a total commitment of six years.

 3.  He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of
 Military Justice (UCMJ) four times:


      a.  on 7 June 1965, for being absent without leave (AWOL) one day;


      b.  on 20 December 1966, for two specifications of willfully
 disobeying orders from a noncommissioned officer (NCO);


      c.  on 9 March 1967, for being AWOL from 25 February 1967 through 7
 March 1967; and


      d.  on 16 August 1967, for knowingly making a false statement and two
 specifications of failure to pay a just debt.

4.  On 4 October 1967 a special court-martial found him guilty of being
AWOL from 2 September 1967 to 16 September 1967.  His sentence was
confinement for three months.  The findings and sentence were approved on
11 October 1967 and he served in confinement from 11 October 1967 through
27 December 1967.

5.  The discharge packet is not of record.  However, the record shows that
the applicant was discharged on 28 December 1967 under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212 with an undesirable discharge (UD).  He had a total
of 2 years, 4 months, and 16 days of creditable service  (9 months and 0
days in the second enlistment) with 105 days lost due to AWOL or
confinement.

6.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to
separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern of
dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  When separation for unfitness was
warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

7.  The applicant applied for VA benefits and was denied entitlement based
on the determination that his first discharge did not constitute a complete
and unconditional separation from the service.

8.  38 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) §3.13(c), states that an person may
be considered to have had a unconditional discharge if that person would
have been eligible for a discharge or release under conditions other than
dishonorable at that time except for the intervening enlistment or
reenlistment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations
applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate
with his overall record.

2.  The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that
agency, generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to
completion of his complete term of obligated service may not be eligible
for benefits unless or until the VA or the Service Department determines
that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional
separation from the service.

3.  The applicant reenlisted six months prior to the completion of his
original period of obligated active duty.  Although he received an
honorable discharge for this period of service it does not constitute a
complete and unconditional separation from the service.  He was still
obligated to serve for six months on active duty and during these six
months he committed three of the five infractions that lead to his
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.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RVO__  __LEM__  ___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.





            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003086509                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20031118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |Deny                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



-----------------------
[pic]