MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12393
				   AR1998013609

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 two Article 15s and the psychiatric certificate dated 16 May 1968 are falsified documents and should be removed from his records; that missing documentation (such as letters of commendation) be added to his records, and that his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that if it were not for the falsified documents, he would not have been discharged prior to completion of his enlistment.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 January 1966.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62E (Construction Machine Operator).

On 25 August 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 Jul – 2 August 1966.  His approved sentence was to be confined at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $40 pay for 3 months.

The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 31 May 1967 where he served as a 62E, Engineer Equipment Helper.

On 19 March 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully and willfully discharging a firearm under circumstances to endanger human life.  His approved sentence was to be reduced to pay grade E-2 and to forfeit $75 pay for 3 months.  The forfeiture was suspended.

On 22 April 1968 and on 29 April 1968, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty/disobeying a lawful order and failing to go to his appointed place of duty, respectively.  True copies of the Article 15s are on file.

On 16 May 1968, a psychiatric evaluation was completed on the applicant.  No significant psychiatric illness was diagnosed.  A true copy of this document is on file.

On 24 May 1968, separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-212 for unsuitability.  His commander cited as reasons the applicant’s habitual inability to perform assigned duties, apathy, inaptitude and indebtedness.

On 28 May 1968, the applicant acknowledged that he was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He waived consideration of his case before a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and waived representation by counsel.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 30 May 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

On 7 June 1968, he was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 7 days of creditable active service and had 103 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unsuitability.

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 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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.	The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The applicant signed the acknowledgement that counsel advised him of the basis for the separation action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

3.	 The applicant supplies no evidence that either the two Article 15s or the psychiatric evaluation are “falsified.”  Even had there been some question as to their authenticity, considering the applicant’s conviction by two special courts-martial, the characterization of his discharge as general was and still is appropriate.

4.  The applicant does not supply the “missing documentation” that he claims should be added to his records.  The Board is not an investigative agency.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support an application for a specific claim rests with the requester.

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

TNK_____  WTM_____  MVT_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12393/AR1998-013609	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680607	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A41.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.