MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:  12 January 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999024065

	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.

	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		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:  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was given amnesty.  Further, he feels that he has paid the price for being absent without leave (AWOL) by serving time in military confinement, and by being denied a good job for the past 30 years due to the UD.

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

On 25 May 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years and military occupational specialty (MOS) 13A (Field Artillery).  On 
30 July 1965, he was assigned to Irwin, Pennsylvania.

Not all the facts concerning the discharge process are a matter of record.  However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report Directive completed on 11 July 1969 shows that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant on three separate occasions on or about 12 July 1965, on 22 September and on 5 December 1966.  The NJP’s he received were for being AWOL from 20-22 September 1966, from 1-2 December 1966; and for dereliction of duty.  His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. 

Additionally, the ADRB Case Report and Directive shows that on 24 June 
1966 and on 1 August 1967, the applicant was found guilty by both a summary court-martial and a special court-martial of being AWOL from 20 April-24 May 1966 and from 26 March-22 June 1967.  His sentences included confinement at hard labor.  He was also convicted by court-martial on 22 July 1968 for being AWOL; however, neither the type of court-martial nor the days for which he was convicted are a matter of record.  

The available records indicate that the applicant, on an unknown date, requested a compassionate reassignment due to the illness of his parents.  The result of this request is not contained in the record. 

During the discharge process, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He had no mental disease or defect sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels, and he was not motivated for further military service.  The date of the examination is not contained in the available records.  
On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.

On 29 August 1968, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He also stated that he understood the consequences of receiving a UD which would be issued under other than honorable conditions.  He waived legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 3 September 1968, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, because of unfitness due to habits and traits of character, repeated commission of petty offenses and habitual shirking. 

On 13 September 1968, competent authority waived the requirement for further counseling and rehabilitation, approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. 

On 13 September 1968, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
1 year, 7 months and 4 days of active military service and he had a total of
509 days lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.

Evidence of record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant an upgrade of his discharge on 11 July 1969 as a result of a record review and again on 5 September 1979, as a result of a personal appearance. 

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided, in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished a UD, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable 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.  Even though not all of the facts are available concerning the discharge process, the applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) during the discharge process. The discharge identifies the characterization and the reason.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The Board found that the applicant’s substandard service record did not warrant an upgrade for the period of service under review.

4.  Further, the Board noted that the applicant had many other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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

JNS_____  INW____  LLS_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024065	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000112	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681013	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A78.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7800	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.