MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999016695

	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. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his problems were of a personal and financial nature.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 29 December 1972 as a food service specialist.

On 15 March 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 March 1973 to 13 March 1973.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 20 March 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction on 18 March 1973.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 4 June 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 25 May 1973 to 3 June 1973.  His punishment consisted of 30 days extra duty.

On 30 August 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent from his appointed place of duty on 22 August 1973 and for being AWOL from
24 August 1973 to 30 August 1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of pay, 14 days restriction, and 30 days extra duty.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 26 October 1973 for being AWOL from 31 August 1973 to 12 September 1973.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 15 days.

On 19 December 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 14 December 1973 to 18 December 1973.  His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand, 14 days restriction and 7 days extra duty.

On 17 January 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 10 January 1974 to 17 January 1974.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 29 March 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 February 1974 to 28 March 1974.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days extra duty.
On 24 September 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 20 September 1974.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days extra duty.

On 27 September 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 22 July 1974 to 29 July 1974 and from 9 August 1974 to 30 August 1974.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, 25 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 24 September 1974 and was found qualified for separation.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 25 September 1974 which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.  

On 1 October 1974 the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.

On the same day the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.

On 11 November 1974, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 20 November 1974.  He had a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 23 days of creditable service and had 91 days of lost time due to AWOL. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an 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 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/pr 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.  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 therefore were appropriate  considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant had 91 days of lost time due to AWOL.  Considering the nature of the offenses and his otherwise undistinguished record of service, his discharge appears to be appropriate.

4.  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.

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

CWB____  EB_____  RJW_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016695	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990304	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.