MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 November 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11547

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of this offense.

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

He was inducted on 23 November 1970.  He successfully completed his training 
as a power generator equipment repairman and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

On 25 June 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to be at his appointed place of duty on 25 June 1971.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended) and 
14 days extra duty.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 2 August 1971 for assault on a noncommissioned officer.  His sentenced consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 14 days (suspended).  

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 7 February 1972 of four specification of failure to go to his prescribed place of duty.  His sentence
consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and 21 days confinement.  

On 15 February 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to
his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and
7 days restriction.

On 2 March 1972, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the service was being initiated under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He also waived representation by counsel and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 6 March 1972, the applicant’s commander initiated the recommendation for elimination from the service under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unfitness.  

He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s numerous disciplinary actions against him, the frequency of these disciplinary actions, and his lack of motivation to perform his assigned duties.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 11 April 1972 for being disrespectful towards a superior commissioned officer and disobeying a
lawful from a superior noncommissioned officer.  His sentence consisted of
a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.  

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on
13 April 1972 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 April 1972 under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had served 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days of total active service and had 9 days of lost time due to AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect, at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge 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.  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 reason therefore were appropriate 
considering all of the facts of the case.

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

___be___  __fe ____  __tap ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director