APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general under honorable conditions discharge be changed to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that a proper investigation of his case was not conducted and he did not receive any counseling.

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

On 11 December 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  

On 8 February 1974, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave from 3 - 7 February 1974.

On 1 March 1974, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 7 March 1974, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 14 - 27 February 1974.

On 11 March 1974, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and mentally competent to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 25 March 1974, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He noted the applicant had been counseled for his two AWOL periods and that the applicant stated he wanted no part of the Army.

On 26 March 1974, the applicant acknowledged that he was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  He waived appearance before a board of officers, personal appearance before such a board, and representation by counsel.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 1 April 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be given a general discharge.

On 23 April 1974, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He had completed          3 months and 18 days of creditable active service and had 18 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 or unjust.  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 with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He had the right to present his case before a board of officers and waived this right.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                 Loren G. Harrell
 Director