MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 February 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11249
                                              AR1998014478

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his commander told him line 13 (character of service) of his separation document (DD Form 214) was in error and that it would take 6 months or so to correct.  He further states that due to his commander’s error, the types of jobs available to him are becoming more limited, creating a hardship.

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s submission, in conjunction with the official military personnel records, amply advance his contentions and substantially reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 27 February 1968 for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was assigned to the Federal Republic of Germany for duty as a cannoneer (13A).  On 28 October 1968 the applicant was honorably discharged prior to his expiration term of service and immediately reenlisted for another 3 years.

On 7 December 1968 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL (2 days). The punishment included a forfeiture of $20.00, reduction to private (E-2) and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 29 January 1970 the applicant received NJP for AWOL (45 days).  The punishment included a forfeiture of $57.00 for 2 months, reduction to private   (E-1) and 45 days extra duty and restriction.  

On 3 June 1970 the applicant received NJP for AWOL (19 days).  The punishment included a forfeiture of $89.00.

On 16 July 1970 the applicant received NJP for AWOL (19 days).  The punishment included a forfeiture of $81.00 per month for 2 months and a reduction to private (E-1).

On 13 January 1971 the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial for AWOL (2 days).  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $100.00 and confinement at hard labor for 14 days

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his separation document (DD Form 214) shows he was administratively discharged on 23 March 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 2 years, 10 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had 70 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of that 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 unfitness.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate 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.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.

2.  There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided any evidence to support his contention that his commander made a mistake in the characterization of his discharge.

3.  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	AC98-11249	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC, 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710323	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.