MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12518
				   AR1998014206

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That under the McNarmara Program he should not have been allowed to enlist in the Army with a low score.  He also states that he served in Vietnam and accomplished all objectives for which he enlisted. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 30 March 1968 for a period of 3 years.  He was a category IV enlistee with an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) Score of 16.  He enlisted under a special enlistment program that allowed individuals to enter the Army with low aptitude test scores.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  His highest rank attained was private first class (E-3).

The applicant was assigned to Vietnam from 17 September 1968 through 
7 September 1969.  Upon completion of his tour in Vietnam, he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado with a reporting date of 18 September 1969.  He did not report to Fort Carson and was declared AWOL on 18 September 1969. He returned to military control on 20 November 1969 at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort McPherson, Georgia.

On 25 November 1969 the applicant went AWOL again and returned to military control at the Special Processing Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia on 1 December 1972.

He was convicted by a general court-martial on 23 February 1973 for being AWOL from 25 November 1969 through 1 December 1972.  He was sentenced to reduction to the pay grade of private (E-1), confinement at hard labor for 7 months, and a dishonorable discharge.  The convening authority approved the sentence and the applicant was placed in confinement.

On 31May 1973 the Board of Review examined the record of trial and found it to be legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty and the sentence.  The applicant was separated from the Army on 26 July 1973 with a Dishonorable Discharge.

According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, in effect at the time, the maximum punishment the applicant could have received was 18 months confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to rank of private E-1, and a dishonorable discharge.

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.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant met Army entrance qualifications under a special enlistment program.  He completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and successfully served in Vietnam, which indicates to the Board that he could perform to Army standards if he had chose to do so.

4.  The applicant’s contention that his low test scores made him ineligible for enlisting in the Army is not supported by either evidence submitted with the 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

____X____  ____X____  ___X_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12518	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	DD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	730726	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	GCM .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	105.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY, 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 105.00		
2. 05.00		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.