RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018292


      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. Rene’ R. Parker               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Crain                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Tucker                  |     |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, in effect, that his reentry code be changed and
the “CI,” indicating that he was a conscientious objector, be removed from
his separation document.

2.  The applicant states that he never submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel
Action) requesting discharge as a conscientious objector.  He said that he
did not meet with a military chaplain or psychiatrist.  Additionally, he
argues that he did not receive or sign a letter informing him of a hearing
concerning his discharge as a conscientious objector.  The applicant
concluded that he was never advised of any consequences associated with
being discharged as a conscientious objector or offered the chance to
withdraw his request.

3.  The applicant provides his Automated Separation Document and self
authored letter.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 1 February 1990.  The application submitted in this case
is dated     22 December 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the US Army National
Guard on 5 July 1989 for an enlistment bonus and military occupational
specialty (MOS) 19E (Armor Crewman).  He served 6 months and 27 days and
was honorably discharged on 1 February 1990.

4.  Item 26 “Reenlistment Eligibility” on the applicant’s Automatic
Separation Document shows “RE-03 (CI).”


5.  On 25 January 1990, a memorandum was sent to the applicant and his
commander concerning the applicant’s failure to report to Fort Hamilton.
The memorandum explained that the applicant was scheduled to ship on 2
January 1990 to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for attendance at Individual Active
Duty Training for Military Occupational Specialty qualification.  However,
the applicant failed to report and consequently he was informed to notify
headquarters immediately upon receipt of the memorandum as to the reason he
did not show for shipping.  The memorandum also stated that the applicant’s
failure to respond would result in the headquarters placing him in a
deserter status.

6.  On 2 February 1990, the applicant submitted a letter to the commander
stating his experience in the National Guard caused him to become
increasingly aware that the military was contradictory to his religious and
moral beliefs.  He said the military goes against the commandments of God;
in particular “Thou shall not kill.”  He stated that he could not see
himself picking up a rifle and killing someone.  He admitted that he
believed he could not serve in the military in a noncombatant post because
it would be freeing someone else to commit the sins in place of himself.
The applicant concluded that he sincerely appreciated the commander’s
understanding of this matter and wished to assist in the ending of his
(applicant) military career as swiftly and gracefully as possible.

7.  The applicant’s entire conscientious objector application packet was
not in the records available to the Board.

8.  Orders 33-59 dated 15 February 1990 discharged the applicant from the
Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective 1 February
1990.  The termination code is listed as CI.  There is no information in
the available records which show how much of an enlistment bonus the
applicant received but, his orders verify that no recoupment was made
against his enlistment bonus.

9.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management)
defines reentry codes.  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that
reentry code "3" applies to a person who separates as a conscientious
objector.  Additionally, the regulation states that the disqualification is
waivable.

10.  Army Regulation 600-43 (Conscientious Objection) provides the
procedures for applying for conscientious objector status.  The regulation
states that military personnel who seek either discharge or assignment to
noncombatant duties because of conscientious objection will submit an
application on DA Form 4187.  Personnel will indicate whether they are
seeking discharge or assignment to noncombatant duties.  Commanders will
insure that persons requesting conscientious objector status and discharge
are advised that their refusal to perform military duty, wear the uniform
or otherwise comply with lawful orders of competent military authority,
will bar all their rights under the laws administered by the Administrator
of the Veterans Affairs.  The interviewing chaplain will advise the
conscientious objector that any information between the applicant and the
chaplain will not be privileged since a detailed report of the interview
will become part of the application for consideration.

11.  Additionally, the regulation states that a person may withdraw his or
her application before final action has been taken.  Headquarters,
Department of the Army (Conscientious Objector Review Board), will make the
final determination on all applications requesting discharge.  Reserve
Component personnel not on active duty or active duty for training
determined to meet the criteria for discharge, orders will cite the reason
for discharge as conscientious objector.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s record does not contain his entire
conscientious objector application packet, and as such the Board is unable
to determine if regulatory procedures were followed, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity applies.  It is
obvious that the applicant requested discharge based upon his admittance in
his letter to the commander that due to his religious beliefs he could not
serve in the military or seek assignment to noncombatant duties.

2.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE code was assigned based
on his status as a conscientious objector and therefore, is correct.

3.  The applicant is advised that although his RE-3 was properly assigned,
this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from returning to
military service.  The disqualification upon which the RE-3 was based may
be waived for enlistment purposes.  The applicant is advised that if he
desires to enlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise
him on his eligibility for returning to military service.  Those
individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the
service at the time and may process enlistment waivers for the applicant’s
RE code.

4.  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.

5  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 February 1990; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on            31 January 1993.  The applicant did not
file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a
compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest
of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WC__  ___JR___  __DT ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ______William Crain________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018292                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060921                                |
|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]