MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1999                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023351

	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	
	Mrs. Judy L. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge, so that he may be able to utilize his benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that while he was in Korea, he was informed by his wife that his newborn baby had died.  He states that he was unable to get leave and the mental anguish caused him to continually make errors in his judgement.  He further states, that if he had been given proper counseling with some help, maybe he would have been able to complete his tour of duty honorably. 

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

On 26 August 1974, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K10 (Tactical Wire Operation Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

Between July 1975 and August 1976, the applicant was counseled on nine different occasions for being disrespectful, for failure to repair and for dereliction in the performance of his duties. 

Between July 1975 and September 1976, the applicant accepted five nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for four occasions of being disrespectful, for failure to repair, for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority, for disobeying a lawful order and for dereliction in the performance of his duties.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings. 

On 9 November 1976, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for misconduct and that he be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.

On 8 December 1976, the board convened, the applicant appeared before the board of officers with counsel.  The board found the applicant undesirable for further retention in the military service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and recommended that he be discharged from the service because of misconduct with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The Commanding General approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the issuance of a UD.   

On 22 December 1976, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for misconduct with a UD.
He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 26 days of creditable active service.  

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  That 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 misconduct.    

On 21 March 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 appeared before a properly constituted administrative separation board which recommended his undesirable discharge.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was consistent with the Army’s standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel  

3. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__rvo___  __jma___  __mw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023351	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990812	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761222	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	144.60	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.