MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 November 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11311

	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. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has an honorable discharge from his first tour of duty and another honorable discharge from the USAR and has 15 years with the union and wants his other than honorable discharge upgraded.

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

He enlisted in the Army National Guard of North Dakota on 27 January 1961 for 6 years.

He was ordered to active duty on 15 August 1962 for 2 years.  He completed his initial training and was assigned to the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for AWOL on 4 occasions between 26 September 1963 and 3 March 1964 (each instance was less than a day).  The punishments included reduction in grade, extra duty and forfeitures of pay.

On 9 March 1964 the applicant’s commander initiated a bar to reenlistment citing his disciplinary record and numerous counseling.  On 1 April 1964 the bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority.

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 9 August 1964.  He completed 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of creditable active duty.

On 12 January 1965 the applicant again enlisted in the Army for 3 years.  He was assigned, first to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and then to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

During August, September, and November 1965 the applicant received NJP on 4 occasions for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (three times), and for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner.  The punishments included forfeitures of pay, extra duty and restriction to the company area.

During October and November 1965, and during January 1966, the applicant was convicted on 3 occasions by summary court-martial of failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty (3 specifications), of AWOL (3 specifications totaling 55 days), for leaving his guard post before being regularly relieved, and for breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to forfeitures of pay, confinement at hard labor, and reduction in grade.

On 18 November 1965 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness based on undesirable habits and traits of character.  The commander cited the applicant’s disciplinary record as a basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation, indicating that he may receive an undesirable discharge.  He waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, did not desire counsel, and did not desire to make a written statement or call witnesses in his own behalf.

On 28 January 1966 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 February 1966.  He completed a total of 4 years, 11 months and 22 days of creditable active service and had 55 days lost time during his last period of service.

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

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 2 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, serves as the current authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for acts or patterns of misconduct involving discreditable involvement with military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  It states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for discharge under this chapter.

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.  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.

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

3.  The applicant’s previous honorable discharges and his good work subsequent to his last discharge are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant upgrade of his last discharge from the Army.

4.  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

__JEV___  __JNS___  __RVO___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director