RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         14 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100272


      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. Mark Manning                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen Heinz                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |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.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his previous
request to upgrade the character of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was immature, and would have
stayed in the Army if he had been stationed with his brother as promised by
the Army recruiter.

3.  The applicant states, in an undated letter, that he joined the Army in
1990 and was told by his recruiter that he could be stationed with his
brother.  He states that he was, however, assigned to Germany and told he
would not be stationed with his brother.  He believes that his recruiter
lied to him.

4.  He states that after several attempts to get out of the Army he went
AWOL (absent without leave) but eventually turned himself in at Fort Ord,
California.  He states he was finally released with a “general discharge.”

5.  The applicant states that he now knows that what he did was wrong, but
that he has matured, married, and is the father of two children.  He notes
that he is a hard worker, worked at the same job for 3 years, and has no
police record.  He states that 12 years is long enough to be punished.

6.  The applicant provides five letters of support from family and friends,
including one from his brother.  He also submits copies of correspondence
from his congressional representative, which were authored in the summer of
1991 and in 1992.

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 AC94-
08932, on
18 December 1996.

2.  Although the self-authored statement, submitted with the applicant’s
current application to the Board was included with his original request to
have his discharge reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board, his
argument that he was immature, has now matured, and that his recruiter lied
to him, are new arguments not previously addressed by this Board.

3.  The statement from the applicant’s brother, submitted in support of the
current petition to this Board, is undated.  However, the other statements
of support were authored in 2003.  The applicant’s brother indicated in his
statement that he and the applicant, his twin brother, were always together
and planned to join the military together after graduating from high
school.  He indicated that he (the author of the statement) was involved in
an accident and after discussing the situation with his brother (the
applicant) they decided it would be “in our best interest” to join the
military separately and “be our on [sic] man.”  He noted that in spite of
joining the Army after his brother, he went to basic training first.  While
in basic training he realized that he had made a big mistake by joining the
Army without his brother.  He was eventually assigned to Fort Ord,
California and managed to “deal with the situation at hand” after his
mother relocated to California to be with him and his spouse.  He stated
that his brother (the applicant) was assigned to Germany after training and
that they “missed [him] considerably….”  He states that his brother
attempted to be reassigned to Fort Ord and even contacted their
congressional representative.  However, he notes that when his brother was
granted Christmas leave he convinced him [the applicant] not to return to
Germany when his leave was up.  Although his brother did go AWOL, he states
that he remained in the Army and “served [his] country” until his
separation in 1993.  He states that he is now a police officer and that his
brother has the same dream but is being denied that dream because of “his
past choice of leaving the service.”

4.  The applicant was born in August 1970 and enlisted in the United States
Army Reserve on 4 October 1989 under the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program
(DEP). He was discharged from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army on
7 February 1990 for a period of 4 years and 18 weeks.  His enlistment
contract indicates that his enlistment options included training as an
artilleryman and airborne training.

5.  In July 1990, shortly after arriving in Germany, the applicant was
promoted to pay grade E-2.

6.  In addition to the letter of support authored by the applicant’s
brother, four additional letters were submitted.  Two of the letters were
authored by family members and the other two by individuals who have known
the applicant for several years.  The letters all attest to the fact that
the applicant has been a changed man since his 1992 marriage and becoming a
father.  They note that he is dependable, a hard worker, and that although
he made mistakes his heart is big and his future bright.

7.  The 1991 correspondence from the applicant’s congressional
representative was apparently associated with the applicant’s attempts to
secure a compassionate reassignment.  The letters, however, commenced 6
months after the applicant had departed AWOL.  The 1992 letters were
associated with the applicant’s attempts to secure copies of his 1990 Leave
and Earning Statements (LES) and a copy of his separation document.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his
recruiter told him that he could be stationed with his brother.  The
statement submitted by the applicant’s brother indicates that they had
decided to enlist separately.  His brother makes no mention that recruiters
had guaranteed them the same assignment as part of their enlistment
contracts.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he sought the assistance of his
congressional representative is also not supported by any evidence of
record.  Correspondence from the applicant’s congressional representative
did not commence until 6 months after the applicant had already been
reported as AWOL.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.  His successful completion of training
and promotion to pay grade E-2, clearly indicates that the applicant was
capable of honorable service, in spite of his immaturity.

4.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, he did not receive a general
discharge, but rather was discharged under other than honorable conditions.
 The fact that he now realizes the consequence of his actions, and his
contention that he has been a good citizen and father, has been noted.
However, neither factor outweighs the seriousness of his conduct while in
the military and does not, in this case, provide an adequate basis upon
which to grant relief as a matter of equity.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MM__  ___KH __  ___RD __  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 AC94-08912, dated 18 December 1996.




                                  ____ _Mark Manning______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100272                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/09/21                              |
|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]