MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            10 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11344

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged due to his lack of  mental reasoning.

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

He enlisted on 27 November 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training as an indirect fire infantryman and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

On 2 July 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for possession of marijuana and one binoctal tablet (a habit forming drug).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
 
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 December 1969 for being
AWOL from 14 August 1969 to 4 October 1969 and from 17 October 1969 to
20 November 1969.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and confinement at hard labor for 1 month.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 18 August 1970 for being 
AWOL from 10 January 1970 to 6 June 1970.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months. 

The applicant initiated a reaffirmation of allegiance to the United States and pledged to complete faithfully 9 months of alternate service in the Reconciliation Service Program.  However, on 1 August 1975, he was terminated from the program due to non-performance.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, a review of the ADRB decisional 
documents show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 1 April 1975, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 4313 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 
27 days of total active service and had 233 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement prior to his scheduled expiration term of service (ETS) and 
1,431 days of lost time due to AWOL subsequent to his normal ETS. 

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an
upgrade of his discharge on 20 October 1978.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s file and listening to the applicant’s testimony, the Board concluded

that he was properly, but not equitably separated.  The Board considered his overall military service and that sufficient mitigation was present to justify partial relief.  Therefore, the Board voted to change the applicant’s characterization of service to under honorable conditions (General). 

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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is
authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers, who voluntarily
entered into and completed an alternate public work program specifically 
designated for former soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for
AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Under this
proclamation, eligible deserters were given the opportunity to request discharge
for the good of the service with the understanding that they would receive an
undesirable discharge.  Upon successful completion of the specified alternative
service, the deserter was issued a clemency discharge.  A clemency discharge does not restore veterans benefits; rather, it restores federal and, in most instances state civil rights, which may have been denied due to the less than honorable discharge.  If a participant of the program failed to complete the period of alternative service the original characterization of service, undesirable, would be retained.

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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the    
applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights

2.	Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate given the nature of his discharge.

3.  Notwithstanding the action taken by the ADRB, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 

4.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contention.  
However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

5.  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

__jhl  ___  ___ja  ___  __sk____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11344	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/04/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A70.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.