RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           13 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050003130


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |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 that his Reentry (RE) Code be changed from a “4”
to a “3”.

2.  The applicant states the country is in turmoil and he believes it is
his duty to be there for his country and desires to enter the service on
active duty.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He initially enlisted in the Navy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on 17
July 1989 and served as a boatswain mate until he was discharged in the pay
grade of E-3 on 17 December 1992.

2.  On 8 June 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Army in Des Moines, Iowa,
for a period of 3 years and training in the Infantry Career Management
Field.  He completed his one-station unit training (OSUT) at Fort Benning,
Georgia, and as transferred to Fort Stewart, Georgia, for duty as a
fighting vehicle infantryman.

3.  On 26 February 1999, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained
absent in a deserter status until he was returned to military control at
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on 11 May 1999, where charges were preferred against
him for the AWOL charges.

4.  On 13 May 1999, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  In his request he indicated that he understood the charges
that had been preferred against him, that he was making the request of his
own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the
implications attached to his request.  He also admitted that he was guilty
of the charges against him or of lesser included offenses which authorized
the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged
that he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than
honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a
result of such a discharge.  He further declined to submit a statement or
explanation in his own behalf and also indicated that he did not desire
further rehabilitation nor did he desire to perform further military
service.

5.  The appropriate authority approved his request on 9 September 1999 and
directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

6.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
6 October 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 1 month, and
15 days of active service during his current enlistment and had 74 days of
lost time due to AWOL.  He was issued an RE Code of “4”.

7.  He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 4 March 2003
requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  He asserted at
that time that he had been going through a rocky marriage and thought that
there was no other way to handle his problem.  However, he has grown since
that time and desired another chance.  On 21 July 2004, the ADRB determined
that his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to
deny his request.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit
guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which
authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and
they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions was then and still is
normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.  Additionally, he was awarded the
RE Code that was appropriate for the reasons under which he was discharged.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a
trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good
of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a
felony conviction on his records.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the
charges against him.

4.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his
undistinguished record of service during such a short period.

5.  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

__slp___  __mhm___  __alr___  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.




                 Shirley L. Powell
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003130                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051213                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UOTHC)                                 |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1999/10/06                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH10 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |GD OF SVC                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |689/A70.00                              |
|1.144.7000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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