RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016097


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 upgrading his
discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he served in the Army for 2 years, 4 months,
and
14 days, and of that time 2 years and 29 days was spent in Korea, where he
performed all of his duties with honor and pride.  However, once he
returned to the States he realized that he had a problem.  He was depressed
most of the time, and did not care about his life.  He spoke to his
commander about his problems and asked where he could get help.  His
commander advised him to go home and not come back, to get help at home,
and that's what he did.

3.  The applicant further states that when he was returned to military
control he was not offered mental health help even after explaining that he
went AWOL to get discharged.  He protested his discharge and was told that
it would be upgraded to honorable in 6 months provided he did not get into
trouble.  He feels his discharge was unfair because for 2 years, 11 months,
and 19 days he was a model Soldier with a spotless record, and even today
he is a 52-year old citizen who has no record other than a few speeding
violations.

4.  The applicant provides copies of his discharge certificates in support
of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 1971, for a
period of
3 years.  He served in Korea from January 1972 to December 1973.  During
his service in Korea he received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

2.  On 13 December 1973, the applicant was honorably discharged for the
purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 14 December 1973, he reenlisted for
a subsequent period of 3 years.

3.  On 9 July 1974, a DA Form 188 (Extract Copy of Morning Report) shows
that on 4 June 1974, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL).

4.  A DD Form 3836 (Notice of Return of US Army Member from Unauthorized
Absence) shows the applicant was apprehended by the FBI and returned to
military control on 31 January 1975.


5.  On 11 February 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
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 that he understood the effects of receiving an undesirable discharge,
characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

6.  There are no additional facts or circumstances concerning the
applicant's discharge proceedings.  However, his DD Form 214 (Report of
Separation from Active Duty) indicates he was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, on 10 March 1975, under
conditions other than honorable, and issued an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.  He had a total of
2 years, 11 months, and 19 days of active service, and 237 days of lost
time due to AWOL.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.
At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the
issuance of an undesirable discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant 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 applicant’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 all the facts of the case.


4.  The applicant’s contention that because he was a model Soldier while
serving in Korea his discharge should be upgraded to honorable, is not
sufficiently mitigating to grant the relief requested.  An honorable
characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the
Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  The applicant's 237 days of lost
time due to his being AWOL is not acceptable conduct.

5.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of his rights and the
possible effects of an undesirable discharge.  The fact that the applicant
has had good post service conduct is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant
upgrading his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JS____  __CD___  ___JM___  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.




                                  ______ John Slone_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016097                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060711                                |
|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]