RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            21 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004105257


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Semma E. Salter               |     |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, an upgrade of his under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was in good standing.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 5 April 1990.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist) and the
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private two
(PV2).

2.  The applicant’s record shows that during his active duty tenure, he was
awarded the Army Service Ribbon and Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle
Bar.  The record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement or
service warranting special recognition.

3.  On 11 October 1990, 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) by being absent
without leave (AWOL) from on or about 2 June through on or about 3 October
1990.

4.  On 11 October 1990, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, and the possible
effects of a discharge UOTHC.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel,
the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service,
in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant also indicated that he
understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the
charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized
the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further
acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he
could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran
under both Federal and State law.

6.  On 23 October 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge and
that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 4 December 1990, the
applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued
confirms he completed a total of 3 months and 29 days of creditable active
military service and accrued 123 days of time lost due to AWOL.

7.  On 19 April 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after concluding his
discharge was proper and equitable.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge because he was
in good standing was carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record
confirms he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel,
he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

2.  The record further confirms all requirements of law and regulation were
met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout
the separation process.  Finally, it is concluded that the applicant’s
discharge accurately reflects his short and undistinguished record of
service.

3.  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 evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FE___  __SES__  __PMS__  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.




            ____Fred Eichorn________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105257                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/12/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1990/12/04                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C10                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In Lieu of CM                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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