RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 JANUARY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007295


      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:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester Damian                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin Jenkins                |     |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 records be corrected by changing the
reason for his separation.

2.  The applicant states that they claimed he was beyond help.  He and his
wife were having problems and she was being kicked out of the country, and
would no longer be there.  When he came back to Germany from burying his
father he was told that they were discharging him.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Documents show the applicant enlisted and entered active duty on
22 February 2001, for a period of 3 years.

2.  On 20 October 2003, while serving in Germany, he accepted nonjudicial
punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military
Justice, for was making a false statement with intent to deceive, being
absent from his unit, and for being absent from his place of duty on three
occasions.  His punishment was reduction to E-1, forfeiture of pay
(suspended) extra duty, and restriction.

3.  On 1 December 2003, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, because of misconduct, commission
of a serious offense.  His commander advised him of the rights available to
him.

4.  On 2 December 2003, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for his commander’s
intent to separate him for misconduct.   He further acknowledged that he
understood that if he received a general, under honorable conditions
discharge he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He
waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, elected not to
submit a statement on his own behalf, and declined legal representation.


5.  On 9 December 2003, the intermediate commander recommended approval of
the applicant’s separation with a general discharge.


6.  On 12 December 2003, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 14, and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

7.  On 24 December 2003, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct, and was issued a
general discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, and
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impractical or is unlikely to succeed.

9.  On 1 December 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the
applicant's characterization of service to honorable.  The ADRB determined
that the reason for his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted
not to change it.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB.  There
is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have
substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.  The ADRB upgraded the
applicant's characterization of service to honorable, and found that the
reasons for his discharge was both proper and equitable and declined to
change the reason for his separation.

3.  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

__SP____  __CD___  __KJ____  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 Powell________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007295                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060118                                |
|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]