RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 JUNE 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006818


      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. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |

      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.  In effect, the applicant requests that his discharge under other than
honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable, that his grade on his DD
Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) show his
rank and pay grade as PFC (private first class), pay grade E-3, that he had
7 months of foreign service, and that he was awarded the Kosovo Campaign
Medal and the NATO Campaign Medal.

2.  The applicant made no other statement.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of a VA
(Department of Veterans Affairs) form in which he appointed the VA as his
representative, and a copy of a statement to a Member of Congress (MC).

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel requests that a complete and equitable review of the applicant’s
record be made regarding the applicant’s request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for 4 years on 30 June 2000,
completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and
advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia.  In February 2001 he
was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  He was promoted to PFC in April
2001.

2.  The applicant went AWOL (absent without leave) from Fort Stewart on
      8 December 2002.  He returned to duty at Fort Stewart on 20 March
2003.  On 22 April 2003 court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant.  Members of the applicant’s chain of command recommended that
the charges be referred to a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a
Bad Conduct Discharge.  The Fort Stewart Staff Judge Advocate concurred in
that recommendation.  The convening authority approved the recommendation.


3.  On 6 May 2003 the applicant consulted with counsel, and conditionally
voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court martial, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He stated that he
acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense for which he was charged,
which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.
 He stated that he did not desire to perform any further military service.
He stated that he understood that if his conditional request for discharge
was accepted he would receive a General under honorable conditions
discharge.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the
General under honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.  He
made a statement to the effect that prior to his AWOL he had been on a
weight control program for 360 days, starting when he was in Kosovo, and
had failed to bring his weight to standard.  He was expecting to be
discharged; however, his paperwork was lost, and his unit was seeking to
retain him.  He was frustrated and left.  He did not ask to be excused for
the AWOL, but he knew that he could not maintain the weight standard.

4.  On 8 May 2003 the Fort Stewart Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the
chain of command recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request and he
concurred.  The convening authority disapproved the applicant’s request.

5.  On 12 May 2003 the applicant consulted with counsel and again requested
discharge in lieu of trial by court martial under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In this request, however, there was no
condition affixed to his request.  He stated that he acknowledged that he
was guilty of the offense for which he was charged, which authorized the
imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He stated that he
did not desire to perform any further military service.  He also stated
that he understood that if his request was approved he would be reduced to
the grade of E-1 prior to being discharged.  He stated that he understood
the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions
discharge that he might receive.  In this request, he declined to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 15 May 2003 the Fort Stewart Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the
chain of command recommended approval of his request.  He concurred.  The
separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he
be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge, and that he
be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

7.  The applicant was discharged at Fort Stewart on 30 May 2003 in the rank
and pay grade of Private E-1.  His DD Form 214 does not show any foreign
service.  That form shows only award of the Army Service Ribbon.

8.  The applicant’s enlisted record brief, dated 28 May 2003, provides
information on a Soldier’s qualification data, assignment history, and
overseas service.  That brief reflects his assignments at Fort Jackson,
Fort Lee, and Fort Stewart.  It shows no other assignments.  The overseas
service portion of that brief does not show that the applicant had any
overseas service.

9.  On 30 June 2004 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous
opinion, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides for the reduction of enlisted
personnel and states in pertinent part that when the separation authority
determines that a Soldier is to be discharged from the service under other
than honorable conditions, the Soldier will be reduced to the lowest
enlisted grade.

12.  The NATO medal is awarded for service in the former Republic of
Yugoslavia to military personnel who were under direct NATO command or
operational command.

13.  The Kosovo Campaign Medal is awarded to service members who have
participated in or served in direct support of Kosovo operations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation for the good of the
service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or duress.  The applicant was advised of
the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  His
request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper
consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the
court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received. The
character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall
record of military service.  The applicant has submitted neither probative
evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request to upgrade his
discharge.  His request is not warranted.

2.  The applicant, in his request for discharge, stated that he understood
that he would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade if his request was
approved.  His reduction to the rank and pay grade of private E-1 was
accomplished, and was in accordance with the governing regulation.  His
request to correct his record to reflect his rank and grade as PFC E-3 on
his DD Form 214 is not granted.
3.  Notwithstanding his statement in his request for a conditional
discharge on      6 May 2003 there is no evidence that the applicant had
any foreign service.  His enlisted record brief shows his record of
assignments as reflected above.  That brief shows no overseas service.
Consequently, he is not entitled to have his record corrected to show 7
months of foreign service.

4.  As indicated above, and despite his statement in his 6 May 2003
request, there is no evidence to show that he served overseas during his
period of military service.  Consequently, he is not entitled to award of
the NATO Medal or the Kosovo Campaign Medal.  His request is denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MP __  ___PM __  ___LD __  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.





                                  ____Margaret Patterson______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006818                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050621                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


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