RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        29 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001093


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 discharge, characterized as
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time he went AWOL (absent
without leave) at the age of 18, he had just moved in with his father.  He
was living with his mother and departed because his step father was
abusive.  However, up until his AWOL, he had a very good record.

3.  The applicant provides an additional statement in support of his
request.  He states that during his previous enlistment he made a series of
poor choices that resulted in him going AWOL.  He realized almost
immediately that this decision was and remains a terrible choice.  He went
AWOL because his girlfriend, at the time, informed him that she had become
pregnant by him and if he did not return to her immediately then she was
going to get an abortion.  He was not raised to accept that choice and
wanted every opportunity to prevent it from happening, despite the possible
outcome to him.  So he left advanced individual training (AIT) and returned
to her.

4.  The applicant, feeling the gravity of the situation, found local
employment and began to prepare to become a father.  Approximately a month
after arriving home, he and his girlfriend had an argument at which point
she told him that her being pregnant was a story she had concocted to get
him to come home to her because she felt lonely.  He knew at the time he
left AIT he was going to face challenges being a father, but now, having in
his mind he had lost a child and a chance at a successful career in the
Army, the real challenge was to face the consequences of his misled
actions.  He placed a couple of phone calls to the recruiting office and
they informed him what he needed to do.  He was told that his options were
to sign some form or face court-martial and possibly go to jail.  Not
wanting to be confined, he signed the forms and has regretted losing the
opportunity to serve with honor since then.

5.  He states that his father is a veteran of 22 years, that his mother
also served her country, along with his oldest brother who is currently
serving in Iraq, and his little brother is currently deployed to South
America with the Navy.  The military has long been a proud and honorable
tradition in his family that he greatly wishes to carry on.  He realizes
the reluctance that may be present with his situation.  He has matured a
great deal since making this mistake in the past and wishes only the
opportunity to prove to his family, his country, and himself that he can
and will, if allowed, serve with honor and pride.

6.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request.  He
annotated his form to show he was also providing a letter from his father;
however, this letter was not attached to his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 18 October 2000, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 14 January 2006.

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.  At the age of 18 years, 5 months, and 17 days, the applicant entered
active
duty on 30 June 1999, as a power generation equipment repairman (52D), with
prior military service.  He was advanced to pay grade E-2, on an unknown
date.

4.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 19 August 1999, for
being AWOL from 3 July 1999 to 16 August 1999.

5.  On 19 August 1999, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested
discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so,
he acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian
life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge characterized as UOTHC were
issued.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his
own behalf.

6.  On 31 July 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an UOTHC discharge
and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 


7.  The applicant was discharged in the rank/pay grade, Private/E-1, on
18 October 2000.  He had a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 5 days of net
active service and 44 days of time lost due to AWOL.

8.  On 7 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's
petition to upgrade his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation
of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that 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 the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such
characterization.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member'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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of
the individual.

12.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the     3 year limit on filing to
the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence
on the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision,
the ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time
limit from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level
administrative remedy is utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The date of application to the ABCMR is within three years of the
decision of the Army Discharge Review Board; therefore, the applicant has
timely filed.

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in
lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations  There is no indication that the
applicant's request for discharge was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation
appear to have been appropriate considering all the available facts of the
case.

4.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was
unjust.  He also has not provided any evidence to mitigate the character of
his discharge.

5.  The applicant was 18 years, 5 months, and 17 days of age at the time of
his entry on AD.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less
mature than other Soldiers of the same or of a younger age who served
successfully and completed their term of service.

6.  The applicant statement explaining his circumstances for going AWOL and
his family’s record of military history has been considered.  However, this
statement is insufficient by itself to mitigate the seriousness of his
offenses to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge
characterized as UOTHC.

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise 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

__RDG__  ___PMS_  __LMD__  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.





                                  _____Paul M. Smith_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001093                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060829                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20060114                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chap 10                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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