MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            24 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023736

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is a Vietnam veteran with a “212” who would like to have it changed to honorable.   

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

He enlisted on 3 November 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Vietnam for duty as a light weapons infantryman.  He served in Vietnam from 25 June 1965 to 21 June 1966, was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge, and was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 12 August 1966.   

On 3 November 1966 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 9 September 1966 to 7 October 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months and reduction to pay grade E-1.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 3 November 1966.  

Effective 17 November 1966 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 6 months was suspended until 2 May 1967.

The applicant was convicted by SPCM on 7 March 1967 of being AWOL from
28 November 1966 to 27 January 1967.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 3 months and forfeit $64.00 pay per month for
3 months. The convening authority approved the sentence on 10 March 1967.

On 6 April 1967 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being late for duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 8 days of extra duty and restriction.  

On 22 November 1967, he was convicted by SPCM of being AWOL from 23 May 1967 to 27 September 1967.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and forfeit $64.00 pay per month for 6 months.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 November 1967.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records indicate that on
19 December 1967 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 2 years of total active service and had 335 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

SPCM Order No. 2006, dated 14 December 1967, remitted the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 6 months effective the date of his administrative discharge.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 

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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention has been noted by the Board.  However, the Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included three special court-martials and one record of nonjudicial punishment and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  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

__jev____  ___rwa__  ___alr___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023736	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967/12/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFITNESS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.  813	A92.23/144.9223	
3.  815	A92.25/144.9225	
4.  821	A92.31/144.9231	
5.		
6.