MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:	     

	BOARD DATE:            12 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC85-02167A
                                              AR1999016284

	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. L. L. Harrison		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderson 		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:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge to general.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when he entered the Army in 1967, he was a young man, with a tenth grade education and a drinking problem.  He grew up in a violent and alcoholic environment.  He was persuaded to join the Army to straighten out his life.  Because of his drinking and violent temper he could not adjust to the military environment.  He soon found himself in trouble with the Army and ended up with an undesirable discharge.  He had no idea of the impact that this type of discharge would have on his life.  He also contends that he is a good American citizen.  He also contends in effect, that his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade of his discharge.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 6 August 1967 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits four letters in support of his contention that post-service
factor warrants change in his discharge.  A letter dated 12 May 1997 from a friend who has known the applicant as long as he can remember states that he is now well respected and well liked member of the community.  A letter dated 
2 April 1997 from the mayor who states applicant is a concerned citizen.  Another letter dated 2 April 1997 from a writer who states applicant is a model citizen of strong character and has a lot of pride in himself and the community.  An undated letter from a minister and friend who has known the applicant since he was a young boy and he believes that he deserves every good consideration.  His records show he completed basic training was advanced to pay grade E-2 and completed approxmately 4 months of service before the first offense of record.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the 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 a 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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s assertion that he was young and immature is noted but his completion of basic training, (perhaps the most stressed part of a military career, aside from combat) demonstrated that he had the capacity for honorable service.  There is no evidence of an alcohol problem. 

3.  The applicant’s post-service was attested to by the documents submitted but
these factors are not so extraordinary as to demonstrate a current injustice in the discharge.

4.  Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file.  It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations.  Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit.  The Board has never denied an application.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

6.  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_  __AAO__  ___JEA_ _  DENY APPLICATION

					Loren G. Harrell
					Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC85-02167A
AR1999016284	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	19990520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680524	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-212 . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	A93.01	
2.	A93.05	
3.	A93.17	
4.		
5.		
6.