RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106015


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II          |     |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 reconsideration of his request to upgrade his
discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his overall military service was
good and upon his return to the United States after serving 3 years in
Germany, he was on leave for 30 days; however, he took an additional 10
days of unauthorized leave.

3.  The applicant continues that after his return from leave, he was
discharged from the Army immediately and feels the punishment he received
was excessive
The applicant further states that his discharge does not reflect his
overall service.

4.  The applicant states that he discovered the injustice on 2 July 1982
and request that his failure to timely file be excused because he did not
realize he could get his discharge upgraded.

5.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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
AR1999032923,
on 23 March 2000.

2.  In the original findings, the ABCMR found no evidence of record that
warranted an upgrade of the applicant's discharge under other than
honorable conditions.  The ABCMR found that while empathetic to the
applicant's personal problems, there was no sufficiently mitigating
evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The ABCMR
also found that the applicant's discharge was administratively correct, in
compliance with applicable regulations, and was not made under coercion or
duress.

3.  The applicant provides no new relevant evidence to support his request
for reconsideration.

4.  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.

5.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separation), 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.

6.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge under other than honorable
conditions should be upgraded due to his overall good military service.

2.  Contrary to the applicant's contentions, evidence shows that he
received nonjudicial punishment for assaulting another soldier and that
charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave for 225
days.  Due to these acts of indiscipline, the applicant's conduct was not
exemplary and does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  Evidence shows that 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 record shows that he completed 3 years, 7 months, and
2 days of active service with 225 days of lost time due to AWOL.  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.

5.  The applicant's record of service does not constitute satisfactory
performance in view of his offense and time lost due to AWOL.  Therefore,
the applicant's service does not warrant upgrade of his discharge from
under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the ABCMR, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record was in error or unjust.  The applicant did not
submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fe____  __jtm___  __rjo___  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 AR1999032923, dated 23 March 2000.



                                        Fred Eichorn
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106015                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19820702                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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