MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024080

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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 (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was very young at the time he was in the service and he admits that he made a lot of mistakes, but now he is a changed man.  He goes to state that he would like to ask for a chance to live in this society which an upgrade to his discharge would provide.  In support of his application, he has included four letters of support from friends and colleagues and two letters from his case worker and an instructor of a building and trades school he attended.  Finally, the applicant added a certificate of community service from his community residence.

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

On 26 October 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 18.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Heavy Truck Driver) and was assigned to overseas duty in Vietnam for his first permanent duty station.  

The highest rank the applicant attained while on active duty was specialist/E-4 and there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  The record does contain an extensive disciplinary history which includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on five separate occasions and his conviction by a special court-martial. 

On 8 May 1972, the applicant accepted NJP at the United States Army Personnel Center at Oakland, California, while assigned to the transient company awaiting transportation to Vietnam.  The NJP was for his missing movement.  He arrived in Vietnam on 12 May 1972; however, he was only assigned there for 3 months and departed on 11 August 1972.  He was reassigned to Fort Lee, Virginia where he arrived on 19 September 1972.  

On 5 October 1972, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 27 to 29 September 1972.  He again accepted NJP on 15 May 1973, for two specifications of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty, which resulted in his reduction to the rank of private first class/E-3.  

On 24 May 1973, the applicant was tried and convicted, by special court-martial, of making a false official statement to the military police.  The resultant sentence included a forfeiture of $200.00 and 2 months of restriction.

On 23 July 1973, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 10 to 23 July 1973 and on 9 August 1973 he accepted NJP for being absent from his place of duty, which resulted in his reduction in rank to private/E-1.

The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the separation processing of the applicant are not contained in the service records.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  This document shows that the applicant was separated, under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and or military authorities.  

Army Regulation 635-200 in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, 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 Board congratulates the applicant on his excellent post service conduct; however, this factor alone does not provide a basis for relief.  In addition, the applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board noted that the applicant had successfully completed training, had attained the rank of specialist/E-4, and had served over a year prior to committing the misconduct which led to his discharge. 

2.  While the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events which led to his discharge from the Army, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.  

4.  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.

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

___hof __  __mw___  __dw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024080	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/09/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Frequent Incidents of a discreditable nature.	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.