RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         3 February 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089370


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis L. Greenway            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Regan K. Smith                |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of an earlier appeal
that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he was absent without leave (AWOL) for such a
prolonged period of time because he feared going to jail.  He contends that
his commanding officer denied his application to Officer Candidate School
and the reason he volunteered was to be an officer in the Army Rangers.  He
also contends that while he was AWOL he firmly believed that he was
suffering from clinical depression, that his situation was hopeless and
that his commanding officer's decision was punitive and harsh.

3.  The applicant did not provide any documentary evidence in support of
his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2002071369 on
2 July 2002.

2.  The applicant's contentions are new arguments that will be considered
by the Board.

3.  The applicant went AWOL on 1 June 1978 and returned to military control
on 24 April 1979.  Charges were preferred against the applicant for the
AWOL period.

4.  On 25 April 1979, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He submitted a statement
on his behalf wherein he stated that he applied for Officer Candidate
School while at Fort Benning, Georgia, and that all went fine until one
night he went to the post exchange against the instructions of his drill
sergeant.  Shortly thereafter, the company commander rescinded his
application and that contributed to his going AWOL.  He requested a general
discharge since his record was exemplary.  He also stated that he intended
to complete the final two years of his college education and that his
discharge could harm his chances for employment after graduation.

5.  On 25 April 1979, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.
He was rated "normal" for behavior, he was found to be fully alert and
fully oriented,


his mood was rated "level," his thinking process was clear, his thought
content was rated "normal," and his memory was rated "good."  It was
determined that there was no significant mental illness noted, that he was
mentally responsible, that he was able to distinguish right from wrong,
able to adhere to the right, that he had the mental capacity to understand
and participate in board proceedings, and that he met the retention
standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501.

6.  On 25 April 1979, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination and was found to be qualified for separation with a physical
profile of 111111.  Item 8 (Statement of Examinee's Present Health and
Medications Currently Used) on the applicant's Standard Form 93 (Report of
Medical History), dated
25 April 1979, shows he reported that he was in "good" health.

7.  The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
23 May 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10,
for the good of the service.  He had served 4 months and 23 days of total
active service and had 327 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  On 13 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant's request for a general discharge.

9.  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,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of
Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile
serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of
an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel
officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is
capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four
numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of
functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-
physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-
hearing





and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all
factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level
of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military
assignment.

11.  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.

12.  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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The medical evidence of record does not support the applicant's
contention that he was suffering from clinical depression while he was
AWOL.  Medical evidence of record shows that, prior to his voluntary
request for discharge on
25 April 1979, he was found mentally responsible, qualified for separation
and he reported that he was in "good" health.

2.   There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no
evidence, which shows that his commanding officer's decision was punitive
and harsh.

3.  The applicant’s record of service included 327 days of lost time.  As a
result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
 Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious
to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_RKS____  _SAC___  _CLG___  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002071369, dated 2 July 2002.





            __Samuel A. Crumpler__
                    CHAIRPERSON



|ID                      |AR2003089370                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |20020702                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040203                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |