RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005235


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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 under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He states that he
was wrong and requests clemency based on his post service actions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he went AWOL (absent without
leave) to get a job to support his mother.  His decision was based on
emotion and family hardship.  He believes that an upgraded discharge will
allow him to be a more productive citizen.

3.  The applicant provides copies of a letter of support from his pastor, a
certificate of completion of an emergency health course, and six documents
related to his current job.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant entered active duty on 2 December 1976,
completed training and was awarded the military occupational specialty
(MOS) 05C (Radio Operator).

2.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 16 March 1978, for being AWOL for seven
days and on 19 July 1978 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

3.  The record indicates the applicant was AWOL on 1 August 1978.  However
there is no indication of what if any disciplinary action was taken.

4.  The available records indicated the applicant reenlisted on 17 June
1979; however, there is no DD Form 214 in the available record for his
period of service from 2 December 1976 through 16 June 1979.

5.  The applicant went AWOL on 22 September 1979 and was dropped from the
rolls as a deserter on 22 October 1979.

6.  The applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 14 May 1982 and
returned to military control on 18 May 1982.

7.  On 26 May 1982, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his
rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had
been advised of his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He
also acknowledged he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive
him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran and that he could expect to
experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC
discharge.

8.  The discharge authority accepted the request and directed that the
applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and separated with a
UOTHC discharge.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 25 June 1982.  The DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge) issued at that time is incomplete at
items 11, 12d-12g, 13, 14, and 15.  The DD Form DD Form 214 shows the
applicant was discharged on temporary records and that a DD Form 215
(Correction to the DD Form 214) would be issued to correct any incomplete
information.  No DD Form 215 is contained in the available record.

10.  The applicant’s pastor states that he has known the applicant for over
13 years and that his behavior, conduct, and character as both a husband
and father are unquestioned.

11.  His employee Performance Evaluation rates him at or slightly above
average in all areas except attendance which is rated low.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
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.

13.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets
forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A
punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods
of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

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.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or duress.
2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The letter submitted by the applicant’s pastor and the applicant’s job
evaluation contain insufficient evidence or mitigating factors to support
an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

4.  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

__PBF___  __JCR__  __TMR__  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.





                                  _      _Peter B. Fisher _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060005235                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061221                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 ch 10 . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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