MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            28 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023211

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and immature at the time and had many problems.  However, since his discharge he had matured greatly, has gone to college and became a nurse, is employed at the State mental health department, has six children, and is now a very responsible person.  He goes on to state that he believes his service during his first enlistment and his post-service conduct should be considered in upgrading his discharge.  In support of his request he submits four letters of support that attests that he is a law abiding citizen of good judgement and character and that he is hard worker.  He also submits 11 training certificates/diplomas and a copy of his resume’.

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

The applicant enlisted on 20 September 1963 and served until he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-3 on 10 May 1965 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

He reenlisted in Panama on 11 May 1965 for a period of 6 years and payment of a reenlistment bonus.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 29 November 1965 and was transferred to Sandia Base, New Mexico on 4 September 1966.

On 20 February 1968 he was convicted by a special court-martial of disobeying a lawful order to catch a flight on 9 December 1968.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-3 and a forfeiture of pay.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 29 February 1968 for failure to comply with the company standard operating procedures which required him to clean his room.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, extra duty, and restriction.

On 14 March 1968 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record, his failure to provide support for his dependents, his failure to pay his debts which resulted in letters of indebtedness, that the applicant had been hospitalized for possible ingestion of drugs on two occasions and that both incidents were within 1 day of his departure for Vietnam, that the applicant had feigned unconsciousness and illness at the time of admission to the hospital, that the applicant was a liar, that his integrity and character were disreputable, and that he had failed to respond to numerous (20) counseling sessions.

The applicant elected to waive consideration of his case before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for separation on 19 March 1968 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, He was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 19 March 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 7 months, and 21 days of active service during his current enlistment and had a total of 4 years and 6 months of total active service. 

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 10 June 1969 for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable based on his good service during his first enlistment and because it was hindering his ability to become a policeman in Indiana.  The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and that his service was appropriately characterized.  The ADRB denied his application on 8 August 1969.

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.  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.

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 therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief given his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

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

___fe ___  __lem___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023211	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/03/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212/UNFIT	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583 	144.5000/A51.00/UNFITNESS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.