IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100018350 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests the character of his discharge be changed from under other than honorable conditions to an entry level separation.  

2.  He states in accordance with Army regulations, since he served less than 
30 days (2 months and 3 days), he should have been afforded a different type of discharge.  He should have been discharged as an entry level Soldier.  A document in his file also indicates he should have been given a different characterization of service.  Additionally, he was held at Fort Knox, KY, for the entire period of his proceedings and he did not receive any pay.  Therefore, he was not considered an active duty Soldier.  

3.  He provides a Characterization of Service Checklist for Administrative Discharge Actions.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 27 October 2000.  He enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade
E-1, on 8 November 2000.  He did not complete advanced individual training and he was not awarded a military occupational specialty.  

2.  He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 4 January 2001 and dropped from the rolls on 3 February 2001.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 7 March 2001. 

3.  On 14 March 2001, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared by the Commander, Special Processing Company, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY.  He was charged with one specification of being AWOL from 4 January to 7 March 2001.

4.  On 14 March 2001, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  In doing so, he acknowledged that he had not been coerced with respect to his request for discharge.  He also acknowledged he understood he could be given an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 3 February 2002, the U. S. Army Garrison Commander approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service.  He also directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  On 13 February 2002, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a court-martial in pay grade E-1.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 4 days of net active service.  He was also credited with lost time from 4 January through
6 March 2001, a period of 2 months and 2 days.

7.  Item 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was placed on excess leave for 336 days from 15 March 2001 to 13 February 2002 (creditable for all purposes except pay and allowances.)

8.  He provided a copy of a Characterization of Service Checklist for Administrative Discharge Actions that shows 2 months and 3 days for length of time served in the enlistment or period of service.   

9.  On 10 January 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change in the character and/or narrative reason for discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 stated a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-9a(1), states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry-level status (i.e., completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty or active duty for training), except when characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for   3 years on 8 November 2000.  He was reported AWOL on 4 January 2001 and dropped from the rolls on 3 February 2001.  Upon his return to military control, he was charged with one specification of being AWOL for 2 months and 2 days, and he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial to prove his innocence if he felt he was being wrongfully charged.  He also acknowledged he could be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.

2.  His contentions have been noted; however, based on the evidence, he was not entitled to an entry-level status separation.  At the time of his discharge he was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 4 days of net active service.  He was placed in an excess leave status from 15 March 2001 to 13 February 2002 which was creditable for all purposes except pay and allowances.  

3.  Further, a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is authorized for a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and the circumstances of the applicant's case do not lend themselves to consideration of an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for a changing the applicant's narrative reason for separation.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X_____  ____X___  ____X___  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.



      _______ _ X _______   ___
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018350



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018350



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1