MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999016773

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was unjustified and that he was discharged for being AWOL.  He also states that while absent from his unit he was admitted to the hospital and that he was not provided the opportunity to retrieve his records to present evidence of his admission.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 12 June 1968 as an equipment storage specialist and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 25 May 1970 for immediate reenlist.  He reenlisted for an overseas assignment to Vietnam on 26 May 1970.  

Beginning in August 1970, the applicant received several nonjudical punishments
(NJP) for instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, assault, profane language, failure to obey a lawful regulation, insufficient funds, AWOL (25 days) and for altering an official record.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 16 March 1972 for the aforementioned offenses.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 5 May 1972 and was found qualified for separation with a 311111 physical profile.

On 9 May 1972, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case by and appearance before a board of officers.  He also requested representation by military counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.

On 25 May 1972, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers to determine whether or not he should be discharged under the provisions of 635-212, for unfitness.

The applicant appeared before the board on 9 June 1972 and was represented by counsel.  He also elected to testify in his own behalf.

The board recommended that he be discharged from the service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities for unfitness and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendation of the board of officers on 9 June 1972.  The applicant was discharged on 21 July 1972.  He had a total of
4 years, 1 month, and 9 days of creditable service and had 25 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 19 July 1984.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable, and denied his request on 28 August 
1984.

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 was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his discharge was unjustified and that he was discharged for being AWOL.  However, the Board noted the applicant’s several acts of indiscipline as well as his AWOL offense and that a 
board of officers considered his entire record before recommending discharge.  

5.  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.

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

MKP____  EJA_____  LE______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016773	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990325	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720721	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.