RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008856


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney Barber                 |     |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, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM),
requests that her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her late husband only had an
eighth grade education and was not told it was his responsibility to file
the necessary paperwork to have his discharge changed to honorable.  She
states that there were extenuating circumstances in the FSM’s case and that
he served honorably.  She further states that he attained the rank of
sergeant and that he received medals and citations.  She also wonders why
there was no court-martial or hearing before his discharge.

3.  In a 7 September 2005 letter written by the FSM and provided by the
applicant, the FSM stated, in effect, that he went absent without leave
(AWOL) because of marital problems and that he was told his discharge would
be upgraded to honorable within 90 days.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of the FSM’s Armed Forces Identification
card; his Social Security card; a death certificate; a copy of his DD Form
214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty); a DD Form 258A (Undesirable
Discharge); a letter, dated 21 October 1975, from Headquarters, U.S. Army
Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Georgia; a letter, dated 7 September 2005,
from the FSM; special orders, dated 29 July 1971 and 17 October 1975; and a
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States), dated 26 October 1996.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM enlisted on 17 January 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He served
as a field artillery operations and intelligence assistant and was
honorably discharged on 1 July 1968 for immediate reenlistment.  He
reenlisted on 2 July 1968 for a period of 2 years.  He served in Vietnam
from 16 August 1968 through              14 February 1969.  On 29 April
1970, he was honorably discharged in the rank of sergeant for immediate
reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 30 April 1970 for a period of 6 years.  He
arrived in Vietnam on 27 May 1970.  Records show he was awarded the Vietnam
Service Medal with three bronze service stars, the Good Conduct Medal, the
Army Commendation Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal.

2.  The FSM went AWOL on 3 July 1971 and returned to military control on
19 July 1971.  He went AWOL again on 30 July 1971, was apprehended by civil
authorities on 27 August 1975, and returned to military control on 5
September 1975.  On 17 September 1975, charges were preferred against the
FSM for the AWOL periods.  Trial by general court-martial was recommended.

3.  The FSM’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service is not available.

4.  The separation authority’s decision is not available.

5.  The FSM’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on 21 October 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served a total of 4
years, 6 months, and 21 days of total active service with 1514 days of lost
time due to AWOL.

6.  There is no evidence that the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review
Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

7.  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.  At the time, an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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 (emphasis
added), 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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.

10.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to
automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits
when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted
if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason
for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  There is no evidence the FSM sought assistance from his chain of
command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established
Army procedures prior to going AWOL.  His claim that marital problems
caused him to go AWOL does not provide a sufficient basis for upgrading his
discharge.

3.  The applicant’s comment pertaining to why there was no court-martial or
hearing before the FSM’s discharge was noted.  However, in accordance with
the governing regulation, it appears the FSM submitted a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  The FSM’s record of service and awards and decorations were noted.
However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed
that the FSM’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JR_____  __RB____  __DT____  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.



                                  __Jeffrey Redmann_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060008856                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19751021                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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