RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010115


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree               |     |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, reconsideration of his request to
upgrade his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions to a fully
honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has tried numerous times since
9/11 to reenlist in the Army, which including his writing to Department of
the Army (DA) and the President.  He claims that he traveled to different
Army recruiting stations, but was told he could not enlist because of his
age.  He states that he would like to serve his country and President, so
if he can not serve in the military again, he would like his discharge
upgraded.  He states that he is now serving on the Board of Advisory for
the National Republican Congressional Committee.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence with his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20050014442, on 13 July 2006.

2.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 14 November 1972.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook), and private/E-2
is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a
disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial
punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) on 12 June 1973, for being absent without leave
(AWOL) from 4 through 10 June 1973.  His punishment was reduction to
private/E-1 (PV1), correctional custody for 7 days, and a forfeiture of
$70.00.  His record also confirms that he accrued 78 days of time lost due
to being AWOL during four separate periods between 4 June and
1 September 1973.

4.  On 5 September 1973, a Charge Sheet (DD form 458) was prepared that
preferred a court-martial charge against the applicant for two
specifications of violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from on or
about 15 June through on or about 30 July 1973; and from on or about 7
August through on or about 2 September 1973.

5.  On 10 September 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
was advised of the basis for the contemplated court-martial and the maximum
punishment authorized under the UCMJ; of the possible effects of an
undesirable discharge (UD); and of the procedures and rights available to
him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested
discharge, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
In his request, he acknowledged he could receive an UD, and that as a
result he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and that he could
be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).  He further indicated that he understood he could be
deprived of veteran's benefits under both State and Federal law, and that
he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a
result of receiving an UD.

6.  On 18 September 1973, the Commander of the Personnel Control Facility,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the applicant's commander prepared a 1st
endorsement to the applicant's discharge request.  In this endorsement, he
indicated that he had personally conducted an interview with the applicant,
and that the applicant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the
interview and the consequences of an UD.  The applicant also stated that
his AWOLs were caused by his desire to get out of the Army by whatever
means available to him.  The applicant indicated that he would continue to
go AWOL until he was released from the Army and that he desired to leave
the Army permanently.

7.  On 15 October 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, and directed the applicant receive an UD.  On 23 October 1973, the
applicant was discharged accordingly.

8.  The separation document issued to the applicant on the date of his
discharge, 23 October 1973, shows that he completed a total of 11 months
and 10 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued 78
days of time lost due to being AWOL.

9.  On 7 September 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in a 3 to
2 vote upgraded the applicant's UD to a GD based on the majority opinion
that the applicant should have been court-martialed for his AWOL offenses,
which could have produced an end result of rehabilitating the applicant.
The majority also found the applicant's, age, low aptitude scores, and
education as mitigating factors.  The minority found the applicant had
resigned for the good of the service and knew the consequences of an UD,
and that there was an absence of documentation supporting that would
mitigate the applicant's AWOL offenses, and they concluded the applicant's
discharge was properly and equitably characterized the applicant's overall
record of service.  The majority members considered the minority member's
opinion, and found the applicant's record did not warrant consideration of
an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable.  A new DD Form
214 was published reflecting the ADRB decision to upgrade his discharge to
a GD.

10.  On 3 July 2006, this Board considered the applicant's request to
upgrade his GD to an HD.  It found the applicant’s separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, and it found
no evidence of a procedural error that would have jeopardized the
applicant's rights.  It also agreed with the findings and conclusions of
the ADRB, and of its decision to upgrade the applicant's discharge to a GD,
but found no justification for a further upgrade of the applicant's
discharge.

11.  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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request that his GD be upgraded to an HD was carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.


2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and
regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully
protected throughout the separation process.
3.  The evidence of record further confirms the applicant's discharge was
upgraded by the ADRB for equity reasons and elected to upgrade the
applicant's discharge for equity reasons in 1977, and that this Board
denied a further upgrade on 13 July 2006.  The misconduct represented by
the applicant's disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall quality
of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore,
absent any evidence of an error or injustice related to his separation
processing, or to the prior review by this Board, there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis to support a further upgrade of his discharge and/or
amendment of the original ABCMR decision in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MDM_  __JTM __  __QAS__  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050014442, dated 13 July 2006.




                                  _____Mark D. Manning___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                  |AR20060010115                          |
|SUFFIX                   |                                       |
|RECON                    |AR20050014442 - 2006/07/13             |
|DATE BOARDED             |2007/02/22                             |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE        |GD                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE        |1973/10/23                             |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY      |AR 635-200 C10                         |
|DISCHARGE REASON         |In Lieu of C-M                         |
|BOARD DECISION           |DENY                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY         |Mr. Schwartz                           |
|ISSUES         1.  189   |110.0000                               |
|2.                       |                                       |
|3.                       |                                       |
|4.                       |                                       |
|5.                       |                                       |
|6.                       |                                       |


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