MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC9811518

	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	
	M		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should have been automatically upgraded based upon a decision made during President Carter’s administration.

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

He was born on 3 April 1955.  On 7 December 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training, where his conduct and efficiency ratings were “excellent,” and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit and Organization Supply Specialist).

From November 1974 through June 1975, the applicant had 10 periods of being absent without leave (AWOL).  All but one of the AWOLs were for periods of under 8 days; one period was for 30 days.

Between April 1974 and July 1975, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on seven occasions for offenses including being AWOL, being absent from his appointed place of duty without authority and going from his appointed place of duty.

Between April 1974 and July 1975, the applicant was counseled 17 times for offenses including being absent from his appointed place of duty without authority or going from his appointed place of duty.

On 8 July 1975, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unfitness, 

On 15 July 1975, 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.  

The applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

The applicant completed a mental status examination 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 4 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be given an UOTHC discharge.

On 7 September 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unfitness.  He had completed 2 years, 7 months and 7 days of creditable active service and had    70 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness when they were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and it was established that further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to succeed or they are not amenable to rehabilitation measures.

The Special Discharge Review Program, also known as the Carter Program, was implemented in April 1977.  Eligibility for the program was restricted to individuals discharged with either an undesirable or a general discharge between 9 August 1964 and 28 March 1973 inclusive.  Individuals who received an undesirable discharge during the Vietnam era would have their discharges upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria:  wounded in combat in Vietnam; received a military decoration other than a service medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia or in the Western Pacific in support of operations in Southeast Asia; completed alternate service or were excused from completing alternate service; or received an honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service.

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.  Although the applicant enlisted in the Army at the age of 17, he had served honorably for almost 18 months before his first incident of indiscipline.  He knew what the rules and regulations of the military required of him.  

3.  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 characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate given his record of AWOLs and related discipline problems.

4.  The applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements to be considered for an upgrade under the Special Discharge Review Program.

5.  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