RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         6 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000230


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne Berry                 |     |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 deceased former service member’s (FSM) wife requests that her
husband’s undesirable discharge be expunged from military records.

2.  The FSM’s wife states that her husband died in April 1989 of lung
cancer.  He served as a male anesthesiology nurse after his release from
active duty.  He obtained his Master’s Degree, married and raised two sons.
 His contributions to his family and his profession as well as his
community distinguished him as a model American citizen, which is why she
is requesting that his undesirable discharge be expunged from official
records.

3.  The wife provides letters from her sons in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM’s military records show he enlisted and entered active duty on
17 April 1970 for a period of 3 years for Warrant Officer flight training.

2.  On 19 February 1974, the FSM’s commander preferred court-martial
charges against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 December
1970 to 20 March 1971 and from 1 May 1971 to 11 January 1974.

3. On 21 February 1974, after consulting with legal counsel, the FSM
voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service,
under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him,
and understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian
life, and may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State laws.

4.  On 28 February 1974, the appropriate separation authority approved the
FSM’s discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

5.  On 7 March 1974, the FSM was discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from
Active Duty) indicates he had 1 year 3 months and 20 days of total active
service, and in excess of 1,000 days of lost time.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or
offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge
could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request
for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

7.  The widow and sons of the FSM provide statements in which they attest
to his involvement with the community and his exemplary life, and their
desire to have his discharge expunged for military records.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The FSM voluntarily requested separation under Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid a trial by court-martial.

2.  The FSM’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural error which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering the facts in this case.  There is no authority for
expunging a member’s discharge from official records.  The DD Form 214 is
an official document used to capture a specific time in a member’s career
and as such can be changed or corrected, if warranted, but cannot be
expunged as if that time never existed.

4.  While the FSM's personal and professional success following his
discharge may be commendable it does not outweigh the seriousness of the
offenses for which he was charged and does not provide an adequate basis
upon which the Board would grant relief as a matter of equity.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__CG ___  ___RD __  __LB ___  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.




                                  ___ _ Curtis Greenway______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000230                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051006                                |
|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]