RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015220


      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. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |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 that
his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to
a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he only discovered he had a bad
discharge in 2005 and he is not currently employed and has no medical
insurance.  He states that if his discharge were changed to a GD, he would
be eligible for medical treatment in the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) system.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of 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
AR20050012975, on 6 June 2006.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found that the
applicant's separation processing was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
have tended to jeopardize the applicant's rights.  It further concluded
that the applicant failed to provide evidence of any error or injustice
related to his discharge.

3.  The applicant's record shows that the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 24 July 1974.  He successfully completed
basic combat training at Fort Ord, California and advanced individual
training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana.  Upon completion of AIT he was
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Mortar Crewman) and he
was assigned to Germany.

4.  On 22 April 1977, the applicant reenlisted for 4 years.  His Personnel
Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he was promoted to sergeant
on 10 December 1978, and that this is the highest rank he attained while
serving on active duty.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure,
he earned the National Defense Service Medal and Army Good Conduct Medal.
His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.

5.  On 1 March 1979, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL)
from his unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He was dropped from the rolls of his
organization as a deserter on 30 March 1979.  The record gives no
indication that the applicant was ever returned to military control after 1
March 1979.

6.  On 10 May 1983, the applicant was discharged in absentia, by reason of
misconduct-desertion.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued upon
his separation confirms he completed a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 7
days of creditable active military service and that accrued a total of 1530
days of time lost, 781 days before his normal expiration of term of service
(ETS) and 749 days after his normal ETS.  The DD Form 214 also confirms he
received an UOTHC discharge and that he was separated in the rank of
private/E-1.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes
policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of
misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil
authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when
it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is
unlikely to succeed.  Although an honorable discharge (HD) or GD may be
issued if warranted by the members record of service, an UOTHC discharge is
normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded in
order to allow him to obtain medical care through the VA was carefully
considered.  However, although his current situation is unfortunate, the
fact that he is unemployed and has no medical insurance is not sufficiently
mitigating to support an upgrade of his discharge at this late date.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, and all
requirements of law and regulation were met.  Further, the misconduct
represented by the applicant's extensive period of AWOL/Desertion was
clearly serious enough not to support the issue of an HD or GD at the time
of his discharge or to support an upgrade of his discharge at this time.

3.  As the applicant was advised by the Board after its original review of
this case, 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 again failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this
requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JEV     ___PHM _  __GJP___  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 AR20050012975, dated 6 June 2006.




                                  _____James E. Vick______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060015220                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20050012975 - 2006/06/06              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/04/24                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1983/05/10                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct-AWOL/Desertion               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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