RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006173


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine Fields              |     |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 item 28 (Narrative Reason for
Separation), of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty), be changed and that he be reinstated to active duty to
complete his enlistment.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is making this request based
on the review of his ADRB (Army Discharge Review Board) proceedings and the
provisions regarding his discharge.  His command gave him an improper
amount of time (less than 72 hours) to make his decision prior to
submitting his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial
(less than an hour).  His command made him believe he had to make a
decision immediately after his commander read the charges against him as
listed on the enclosed charge sheet, dated 4 November 2003.  He asked for
more time to make his decision and was denied.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of page five,
of his ADRB proceedings, a copy of his request for discharge, dated
4 November 2003, and a copy of his charge sheet, dated 4 November 2003, in
support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) on 27 August 2001, in pay grade E-4, for 6 years, with an
established expiration of term of service (ETS) date of 26 August 2007,
with prior military service in the United States Navy.  He was ordered to
active duty for training on 4 November 2002 in the Active Guard Reserve
(AGR).  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced
individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. On completion of his
advanced training, he was awarded the military occupational specialty
(MOS), 75B, Personnel Administrative Specialist.
He was promoted to sergeant (SGT/E-5) effective 12 November 2002.

2.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 4 November 2003.
Charge I, willfully disobeying a lawful order from his commissioned officer
to report to his superior noncommissioned officer on 28 October 2003 and
for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his commissioned officer not
to leave Mosul Airfield, on 28 October 2003.  Charge II, resisting arrest
by running from a roving patrol, authorized to apprehend the accused, on
28 October 2003.  Charge III, wrongfully violating force protection
standards by exiting the Mosul Airfield alone and without the required
uniform, individual body armor and Kevlar helmet, which was prejudicial to
good order and discipline in the Armed Forces, on 28 October 2003.

3.  On 4 November 2003, 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 (under
other than honorable conditions) were issued.  He waived his rights and
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

4.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding
the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.
However, his ADRB proceedings show the separation authority approved the
applicant's request for a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant's DD Form 214
shows that on 26 November 2003, he was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu
of trial by court-martial, in the pay grade of E-5.  He was furnished an
UOTHC discharge.  He had a total of 1 year and 23 days of creditable
service.

5.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an
upgrade of his UOTHC discharge on 13 April 2005.  The ADRB determined the
characterization of service was too harsh.  Accordingly, the ADRB voted to
grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to
fully honorable on 16 December 2005.  The ADRB determined that the reason
for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it.

6.  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.

7.  Paragraph 10-2, of the same regulation, pertains to personal decision.
It states that commanders will ensure that a Soldier is not coerced into
submitting a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The
Soldier will be given a reasonable time (not less than 72 hours) to consult
with consulting counsel and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a
request for discharge.

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, in
lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  The additional facts and circumstances, which consist of his
approval/legal review, by the staff judge advocate, are unavailable for
review.  However, his ADRB proceedings indicated that the separation
authority approved the applicant's request for an UOTHC discharge.  His DD
Form 214, dated 26 November 2003, shows he received a UOTHC discharge.  His
narrative reason was appropriate and consistent with his discharge.

3.  The evidence shows that charges were preferred on 4 November 2003, the
same day he submitted his request for discharge.

4.  The applicant alleges that his command gave him an improper amount of
time (less than 72 hours) to make his decisions prior to submitting his
request.  According to regulation, the applicant would be given a
reasonable time (not less than 72 hours) to consult with counsel and to
consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge.

5.  There is no indication that the applicant's request for discharge was
made under coercion or duress.  There is also no evidence, and the
applicant has provided none, to show that he was to make his decision or
that his command made him believe he had to make a decision immediately
after his charges were read and in less than 72 hours.  There is no
evidence, and the applicant has provided none, to show that he asked for
more time to make his decision and was denied.

6.  The applicant contends that he made his request based on the review of
his ADRB proceedings and the provisions regarding his discharge.

7.  The evidence shows that the applicant applied to the ADRB for an
upgrade of his discharge and it was upgraded to honorable.  However, he is
now requesting that his narrative reason for separation be changed in order
to be reinstated to the USAR to complete his enlistment.



8.  The ADRB proceedings and the provisions for his discharge were
conducted in accordance with regulatory authority.  The evidence is clear,
the applicant applied for discharge, for the good of the service to avoid
trial by court-martial.  This was a personal choice exercised by the
applicant under advisement by counsel.  The narrative reason shown on the
DD Form 214 is consistent with the facts and circumstances in the case and
the applicant's contention, that he was given insufficient time to make a
sound decision is insufficient to change the narrative reason for
separation.

9.  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

_MKP___  _EF_____  ___RR__   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.




                                  ______Margaret K. Patterson______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006173                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061109                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20031126                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR  635-200, CHAP 10                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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