RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006956


      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. Prevolia Harper               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. 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.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for
an
upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded
to honorable with full restoration of benefits retroactive to the date of
discharge.  He
claims  that his recruiter wrote up a contract which stated that he would
receive one year of training and one year in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant further states that he was never offered military counsel
during his discharge processing and was initially offered a general
discharge
but was forced to accept an undesirable discharge.

4.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter 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 AC82-
10824, on 27 April 1983.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
12 January 1971 for a period of 2 years.  He completed basic and advanced
individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty
11B10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).

3.  On 30 March 1972, the applicant was separated under provisions of
chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu
of trial by court-martial and received an Undesirable Discharge.  At the
time, he had completed
1 year and 19 days of creditable active military service and accrued 60
days of lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  There is no
indication that he suffered from a mentally or physically disqualifying
condition at the time of his discharge.

4.  The applicant argues breach of contract with regard to the terms of his
enlistment contract and that he was never offered military counsel.  He
further argues that he was initially offered a general discharge but was
forced to accept an undesirable discharge.




5.  The applicant’s enlistment contract shows that he enlisted under a
Regular
Army Enlistment Option.  A DA Form 3286-3 (Statement for Enlistment)
shows that the applicant’s initial assignment to training and duty would be
determined in accordance with the needs of the Army.  This document shows
that the applicant’s enlistment option carried no guarantee or implied
promise that he would be assigned to specific training, duty, or location.


6.  On 12 January 1971, the applicant signed a Statement of Enlistment and
acknowledged that he read and understood the meaning of each statement
above and to avoid misunderstandings, wrote in his own words and
handwriting, all spoken and written promises that had been made in
connection with his enlistment in the Regular Army.  The applicant wrote
“none except as indicated above.”  There are no additional stipulations
noted on the applicant’s enlistment contract.

7.  A Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring a court-martial
charge against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 9 December 1971 to 1
February 1972.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged
that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel who
fully advised him in the matter regarding his request for a discharge.

8.  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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded due to
a breach of his enlistment contract and that he was not afforded legal
counsel during his discharge processing was carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence upon which to base granting the applicant’s
request.




2.  As indicated in the Board’s original decisional document, the applicant
consulted with legal counsel and  voluntarily requested separation under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service to avoid trial by court-martial.  The separation process was
administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant’s records contain a properly executed and legally
sufficient enlistment contract with no evidence of a written or implied
guarantee of an assignment to a specific location.  The applicant signed
his enlistment contract and acknowledged the terms and conditions of his
enlistment.

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 any new evidence or argument that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA __  __RTD __  __LMD __  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 AC82-10824, dated 27 April 1983.




             __James E. Anderholm___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006956                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050804                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, ch 10. . .                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.000                                 |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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