RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  7 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070002305 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Ms. Ernestine Fields

Member

Mr. Randolph J. Fleming

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 discharge with his service characterized as, under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to general or honorable.  He also requests, in effect, that item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank), of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), be corrected to show the entry "PFC" (Private First Class), instead of the entry "PV1" (Private); and item 4b (Pay Grade), be corrected to show the entry "E-3," instead of "E-1."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 2 March 2005.  He was injured in Iraq and was retained on active duty for medical reasons, and was assigned to Company E, DDEAMC (Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center), Medical Holding Company, Fort Gordon, Georgia. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his request. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) on 29 November 2001, as a combat engineer, in military occupational specialty (MOS), 12B, with prior ARNG service.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 6 April 2002.  He served until he was discharged from the MSARNG on 23 February 2004 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was transferred to a troop program unit (TPU). 

2.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 2 March 2005, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, not to exceed 348 days.  He was ordered to report to Mobilization Center-Shelby, Camp Shelby, Mississippi.

3.  On 1 April 2005, the applicant was authorized a pass.  He was to report back for duty on 4 April 2005, and did not.  He was verified as being absent without leave (AWOL) and was reported in that duty status on 7 April 2005.  He returned from being AWOL on 3 June 2005, at 0800 hours.

4.  On 9 September 2005, the applicant status was changed from Ordinary Leave (OLV) to AWOL.  On 16 August 2006, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky. 

5.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 21 August 2006, for being 
AWOL from 9 September 2005 to 16 August 2006.
6.  On 21 August 2006, 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 were issued.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

7.  On 11 September 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he would be reduced to private, E-1, and he would be furnished an UOTHC discharge.  

8.  On 13 September 2006, the applicant was reduced from pay grade E-3 to    E-1, effective 11 September 2006.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 22 September 2006.  He had a total of 5 months and 18 days of net active service this period and 398 days of time lost due to being AWOL.

10.  Item 4a, of his DD Form 214, shows the entry "PV1," item 4b, shows the entry "E-1," and item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade), shows the entry "2006 09 11" (11 September 2006).

11.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

12.  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

13.  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.

14.  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, 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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation of the         DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 4a and 4b will be completed to show the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation.  It also states that item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) will be completed to show the effective date of promotion to the current pay grade from the most recent promotion order or reduction instrument.  

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.  There is no indication that the applicant's request for discharge was made under coercion or duress. 

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation appear to have been appropriate considering all the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust.  He also has not provided any evidence to mitigate the characterization of his discharge.

4.  The applicant’s contentions that he was ordered to active duty in support of OIF, was injured in Iraq, and was retained on AD for medical reasons were considered.  However, there is no evidence in his available records, and he provided none to show that he departed to Iraq and was injured at that location. The overall evidence clearly shows that he was not retained on active duty for medical reasons.  The evidence shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

5.  The evidence shows the applicant was reported AWOL after reporting to Mobilization Center – Shelby.  After reporting there, he was again reported as AWOL after he was assigned to the Medical Holding Company at Fort Gordon, 
Georgia.  The purpose of his assignment to that unit is unclear; but nonetheless, he went AWOL from that unit and remained so absent from 9 September 2005 to 16 August 2006.  

6.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant accumulated a total of 398 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  An absence of this duration is serious and there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant now deserves an upgrade of his discharge.  

7.  The evidence shows that the applicant was ordered to active duty in pay grade E-3 ; however, when his request for discharge was approved, the approving authority directed that he be reduced to the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1 on 11 September 2006.

8.  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

__RJF___  __EF____  ___LDS_  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.




___    Linda D. Simmons_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070002305
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE
20060922
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.