MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11312

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		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 was discharged prior to receiving any treatment for his alcohol and drug use.  He further contends that his level of education and low aptitude scores impaired his ability to serve, and that because of these circumstances the undesirable discharge is too harsh.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 12 October 1967 for 2 years.  He completed basic combat training and was assigned to advanced infantryman training (11B).

On 24 May 1968 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of AWOL (63 days).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended), and a forfeiture of $41.00 per month for 6 months.  On 26 June 1968 the suspended sentence to confinement at hard labor was vacated and the applicant was confined.

On 1 July 1968 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL (24 days).  The punishment included a forfeiture of $31.00 per month for 2 months.

On 27 November 1968 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial for AWOL (64 days).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his  separation document (DD Form 214) shows he was administratively discharged on 30 January 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation      635-212 for unfitness.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 7 months and 21 days of creditable active service and had 238 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 he had a drug or alcohol problem while in the Army, or that the Army failed to provide treatment.

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

___GDP__  ____CLA_  __RWG___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director