RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           18 May 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100750


      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. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Roger W. Able                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |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, that his discharge under other than
honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he has served as a productive citizen for
most of his adult life and his only blemish is his discharge.  He continues
that he was diagnosed and treated for a condition called psychogenic fuge
[of intrapsychic origin; having emotional or psychologic origin in
reference to a symptom as opposed to an organic basis].  The applicant
further states that he was told he had shown evidence of suffering fom this
condition previously.  He argues that this was probably the cause for his
discharge under other than honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant further states that he worked and retired from American
Airlines and he has been the pastor of a Christian church for more than 20
years.  He continues that he has three children involved in the military
and would like for his discharge to be changed.

4.  The applicant provides an undated self-authored letter; a undated
letter from Army Review Boards Support Division in St. Louis, Missouri; a
copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of
Transfer or Discharge); a copy of Special Orders Number 217, dated 5 August
1969; a letter from American Airlines, dated 28 April 2000; a document
titled "American Airlines Maintenance and Engineering 1995 Employee of the
Year Nomination"; and a resume.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 11 August 1969, the date of his separation from active service.
 The application submitted in this case is dated 7 November 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant entered active duty on 6 February 1962 for a period of
three years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced
individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty of
Light Weapons Infantryman.

4.  The applicant was honorably separated from active duty on 3 August
1964. He reenlisted for an additional term of service on 4 August 1964 for
a period of   6 years.  He was separated from active duty under conditions
other than honorable on 11 August 1969.

5.  Records show that the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for the
period 6 November 1967 through 15 May 1969.

6.  On 15 May 1969, the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities
and returned to military control.  He was subsequently charged with
violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for one
specification of being AWOL.

7.  The applicant's records contain an undated, but signed, statement in
which the applicant writes that, upon his return from Vietnam, he learned
his wife was pregnant by another man and this bothered him greatly.  The
applicant further states that he contacted the chaplain and requested a
compassionate reassignment but heard nothing for six months.  The applicant
maintained that he was preoccupied with his personal problems which
resulted in his performance failure and excessive drinking.

8.  The applicant continues that he realizes he was wrong in leaving and
would accept his punishment.  The applicant notes that during his period of
absence, he overcame his emotional and drinking problems and requested that
he be allowed to return to duty.

9.  On 6 June 1969, the Article 32 investigating officer recommended that
the applicant be permitted to resign in lieu of court-martial under
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  However, the major general in
command of the U. S. Army Field Artillery Center at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
directed that the applicant be tried by general court-martial for being
AWOL from 6 November 1967 through 8 May 1969.

10.  On 10 June 1969, the applicant consulted with his counsel at Fort
Sill, Oklahoma and requested a discharge for the good of the service in
lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation
635-200 (Personnel Separations).

11.  The applicant signed his request for discharge which showed that he
was making the request under his own free will; that he was afforded the
opportunity to speak with counsel; that he was advised that he may be
furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he will
be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for
many or all Veterans Administration benefits; and that he may expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other
Than Honorable Discharge.
12.  On 28 July 1969, the applicant's request for discharge for the good of
the service was approved by the major general in command of the U.S. Army
Field Artillery Center at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  The applicant completed 5
years,              9 months, and 12 days of active service with 629 days
of lost time due to AWOL.

13.  On 11 August 1969, the applicant was discharged from active duty and
issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate based
on chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.

14.  Block 11c (Reason and Authority) of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed
Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) contains the
entry AR 645-200 Chapter 10 "SPN" [Separation Program Number] 246 Discharge
for the Good of the Service.

15.  In support of his application, the applicant provided a self-authored
letter which stated that he has served as a productive citizen for most of
his adult life and the only blemish he has is his discharge under other
than honorable conditions.  The applicant noted that during his civilian
employment, he was diagnosed and treated for a condition called psychogenic
fuge and was told that he had showed evidence of suffering with it before
and that this was probably the cause for his military career to go down the
drain.  He continued that he worked and retired from American Airlines and
has been the pastor of a Christian church for more than 20 years.  The
applicant notes that he served his country without any problems for a full
tour.  The applicant concluded in his letter that he has not asked for
anything from the Government and would like for his discharge to be
changed.

16.  The applicant submitted a letter, dated 28 April 2000 from a manager
at American Airlines describing the applicant's work experience while
employed by American Airlines from 1973 to his retirement in 2000.  The
letter states that applicant was promoted to Quality Assurance Supervisor
and that he accepted additional responsibility as American Airlines Quality
Assurance Materials Management facilitator.  The letter also states that
the applicant developed a General Familiarization course and trained more
than 200 personnel.

17.  The applicant submitted a copy of a American Airlines Maintenance and
Engineering 1995 Employee of the Year Nomination, dated 8 February 1996.
The nomination letter noted the applicant's significant contributions to
American Airlines and stated that his dedication and leadership had
contributed immeasurably to the success of the airline.

18.  The applicant submitted a resume which describes the applicant's
special skills and his ability to develop specialized training sessions.
The resume also contains a list of the applicant's achievements including
his title as pastor of the Berean Missionary Church for 17 years.

19.  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.

20.  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.

21.  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.

22.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separation) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted
personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge under other than honorable
conditions should be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant's request for separation under provisions of chapter 10
of   Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service to avoid trial by
court-martial was administratively correct and in compliance with
applicable regulations.

3.  Evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in
accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Lacking evidence to
the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations
were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout
the separation process.

4.  The applicant's post service achievements and conduct are noteworthy.
However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a
discharge and does not mitigate the fact that he was AWOL for almost two
years.

5.  The applicant states he believes his medical condition contributed to
his
AWOL.  However, he provided no medical documentation to support his claim.

6.  There is no evidence in the applicant's medical records that shows the
applicant was treated for a medical condition that could have contributed
to his indiscipline and extensive AWOL.

7.  The applicant's record of service shows that he had completed 5 years,
9 months, and 12 days of active service with 629 days of lost time due to
AWOL
and confinement.  As a result, his Army service does not meet the standards
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

8.  The applicant's first period of service was satisfactory and he
received an honorable discharge.  However, his second period of service was
not satisfactory in view of his extensive lost time.  Therefore, he is not
entitled to a general discharge.

9.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 August 1969, the date of his
separation from the Army; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a
request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 10 August 1972.
 However, the applicant has provided evidence to support his request for
upgrade of his discharge based on good post-service conduct.  In view of
the submitted evidence and since good post service conduct could only
accrue subsequent to discharge from the Army, it is in the interest of
justice to waive failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RJW___  _RA____  __JED___  DENY APPLICATION





BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




                             __Raymond J. Wagner_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |