RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016377


      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. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Antonio Uribe                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |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 his under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is asking that his discharge be
upgraded in order for him to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) benefits.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 13 July 1978.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist) and
private/E-2 is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.

2.  On 29 October 1979, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of
immediate reenlistment, and on 30 October 1979, he reenlisted for 4 years.

3.  On 15 February 1980, the applicant departed Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
for Germany.

4.  On 19 June 1989, the United States Army Deserter Information Point
notified the applicant that a review of his military personnel records
failed to produce a record of his discharge.  It further informed the
applicant that the available documentation indicated he was in a status of
desertion and was eligible for discharge in absentia.

5.  The applicant was further informed that it was anticipated that his
discharge would be UOTHC, and that receipt of such a discharge could
deprive him of many or all of the veterans' benefits administered under
both Federal and State laws and that he could encounter substantial
prejudice in obtaining employment and other benefits.  He was further
advised that prior to being issued a discharge certificate, he was being
offered the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He was
also informed that if he wished to return to military control to resolve
his military status, he should report to the nearest military installation.
 He was finally informed that if he did not return to military control or
respond to the letter within 45 days, action would be taken to effect his
discharge.

6.  A Decision Paper prepared by the Chief, United States Army Deserter
Information Point, dated 3 August 1989, indicated that the applicant was
determined to be absent without leave (AWOL) from the 21st AG Replacement
Station, Germany on 19 March 1980, which placed the applicant in an absence
status for more than 3 years, which precluded charges from being preferred
based on the statute of limitations.  It was recommended that the applicant
close the applicant's open record by discharging him in absentia, effective
3 August 1989.

7.  Headquarters, United States Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center
Orders Number 63-1, dated 3 August 1989, directed the applicant's discharge
under the provisions of paragraph 14-4, Army Regulation 635-200, misconduct-
desertion.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued at the time shows
he received an UOTHC discharge after completing a total of 1 year, 8
months, and
6 days of creditable active military service.

8.  On 2 February 2005, after carefully considering the applicant's case,
the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicant's discharge
was proper and equitable and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of
his discharge.  Based on the date the ADRB considered the applicant's case,
his application to this Board is considered to have been timely filed.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 2-15 contains guidance on
additional requirements for Soldiers beyond military control.  It states,
in pertinent part, that Soldiers may be separated in without return to
military control if he/she is absent without authority after notice of
initiation of separation processing, and/or if he/she is being separated
for the commission of a serious offense when prosecution of the Soldier who
is absent without authority appears to be barred by the statute of
limitations.

10.  Chapter 14 of the separations regulation 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, convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  The regulation stipulates, in
pertinent part, that if the General Court-Martial Convening Authority
(GCMCA) or higher authority determines that separation is otherwise
appropriate under this regulation, a Soldier may be separated without
return to military control of he/she is absent without authority after
receiving notice of initiation of separation processing.  An UOTHC
discharge is normally appropriate for members separated under these
provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded in
order for him to receive VA benefits was carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  The evidence of
record confirms that after being AWOL for more that 9 years, the applicant,
while in a desertion status, was properly notified of his eligibility to
discharged from the service in absentia, and of the effects of such a
discharge.  His separation processing was accomplished in accordance with
the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met
and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The applicant's extended AWOL clearly supports the UOTHC discharge he
was issued, and absent any evidence of error or injustice related to his
separation processing, it would not be appropriate to grant the requested
relief in 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 failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this
requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___ENA _  __AU ___  __REB __  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.




                                  _____Eric N. Andersen ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016377                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/05/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1989/08/03                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Desertion                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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