MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11384

	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. 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 general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no statement.

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

On 11 November 1971, he was inducted into the Army.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76R (Repair Parts Specialist).

On 17 July 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 - 11 July 1972.

Between April and June 1973, the applicant received four counseling statements for being out of uniform by wearing beads, being disrespectful towards his superior officers, and being absent from his place of duty.

On 15 June 1973, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards his superior warrant officer.

The applicant completed 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 capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

On 19 June 1973, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  The commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation due to defective attitudes which made him unreliable and unsuited for further service.

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, representation by counsel and waived a psychiatric examination.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 27 June 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge.

On 16 July 1973, he was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He had completed          1 year, 7 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had 8 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.  The character of discharge is appropriate considering his record of service.

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

GDP    CLA      RWG    DENY APPLICATION

                                 Loren G. Harrell
 Director