MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012817

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge consists of false accusations that have affected his career with the U.S. Postal Service. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 February 1971 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 12 July 1971 for duty as a motor transport operator/light vehicle driver.

On 12 January 1972 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant failed to display the appropriate interest, that he had a defective attitude and an inability to expend effort constructively; which renders him repeatedly subject to disciplinary action.  He went on to state that the applicant had been a constant problem since his arrival in the unit, his attitude was poor, does not want to work and will not work unless supervised, his performance was substandard and mostly incomplete, he displayed a sloppy appearance and was in constant need of a haircut, his living area was substandard, and that he was a known user of drugs. 

The applicant was advised of his rights and elected to waive his rights and not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

He also underwent a mental status evaluation which determined that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and that further rehabilitation would most likely not be effective.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 18 January 1972 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 21 January 1972 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for five specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 26 January 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He had served 11 months and 5 days of total active service.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members having undesirable habits or traits of character were subject to separation for unsuitability.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  The applicant’s contentions, though not specific, have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  The applicant’s indisciplines began immediately upon arrival at his unit in Germany and continued throughout his entire period of service.  Accordingly, his record of undistinguished service does not warrant further relief.

5.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___sk___  ___fkm__  ___rvo __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012817	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/01/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212 	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  547 	144.4000/A40.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.