MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12426
                                                AR1998014234

	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. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Luther L. Santiful		Member	
	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		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 discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he did not know then what he is painfully aware of now.  After leaving the Army in disgrace, he was filled with remorse for not serving his country the way others have.  His life was in turmoil and he was not prepared to deal with the world on its terms.  If he could do it all over things would be different.  For the last 5 years he has been doing work with veterans.  His hope is that the Board can forgive his mistake and upgrade his discharge so that his embarrassment will be minimized.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 13 September 1972 for 4 years.  He completed his initial training and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for duty as a cannoneer (13A).

On 14 August 1973 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself from his assigned place of duty on three different days.  The punishment included a reduction from private E-2 to private E-1, a forfeiture of $73.00, and restriction and extra duty for 14 days.

On 31 January 1974 the applicant received NJP for AWOL (4 days).  The punishment included a forfeiture of $25.00, and restriction and extra duty for 14 days.

On 3 July 1974 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of AWOL (1 day).  He was sentenced to a reduction from private E-2 to private E-1.

On 25 September 1974 the applicant’s commander initiated a bar to reenlistment based upon his AWOL, substandard personal appearance and hygiene, frequent traffic violations, failure to manage personal, marital and family affairs, involvement in discreditable incidents in the civilian community, and recurrent punishments under the UCMJ.  The bar was approved on 4 October 1974.

On 10 October 1974 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 8 November 1974 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 12 November 1974.  He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 23 days of creditable active service and had 98 days lost time due to AWOL and pre-trial confinement.

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

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  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 reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has not provided any evidence sufficient to support a favorable consideration to upgrade his discharge.

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s good post service conduct, however, this alone is not sufficient to warrant granting the requested relief.

5.  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

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director