MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            28 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024319

	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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served his initial service and after his discharge he went home and married his high school sweetheart in May 1963; however, by December 1963 they were separated and she left Louisiana and went to Seattle, Washington.  He goes on to state that he remained in Louisiana until June 1964 when he enlisted in the Army and was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas until December 1964 when he was transferred to Germany.  He continues by stating that he was communicating with his wife while in Germany and in December 1965 he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  He also states that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 and had no problems until he received word from his family that his wife had divorced him, was remarried, and was pregnant. He further states that he injured himself while in Germany and that further contributed to his despair.  He contends that he requested a transfer to the United States in order to try and reconcile with his ex-wife but his request was unjustly denied.  He also contends that had the Army not kept him overseas for such a long time or had they approved his transfer he would not have received an undesirable discharge.  He was only 24 years of age at the time of his discharge and believes that had he received some support from the Army in the matter he would have been honorably discharged.

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

The applicant was inducted in New Orleans, Louisiana on 30 June 1960 at the age of 20.  He served as a light weapons infantryman at Fort Riley, Kansas and in Germany until he was honorably released from active duty on 14 June 1962.  He was released from active duty in the pay grade of E-3 and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training). 

On 27 July 1964 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He indicated on all of his enlistment documents in his own handwriting that he was single at the time of his enlistment.  He was initially assigned to Fort Hood as a rifleman and was transferred to Gelnhausen, Germany on 7 January 1965.

On 29 November 1965 he reenlisted for a period of 6 years and transfer to a unit in Munich, Germany.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 25 May 1966.

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 16 November 1966 of disobeying a lawful order.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 14 February 1967 for destroying government property through neglect by fire (a mattress).  His punishment  consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty. 
He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 27 May 1967 of being AWOL on 22 April 1967,  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-4, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 6 June 1967 for being AWOL from 2 June to 3 June 1967.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

On 16 June 1967 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL on 11 June 1967.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 1 August 1967 for being AWOL on 28 July 1967.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 28 October 1967 of being AWOL from 24 October to 25 October 1967.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1, to a forfeiture of pay, and to restriction for 60 days.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 4 November 1967 of breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and a forfeiture of pay.

On 30 November 1967 the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions and attempts at rehabilitation.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar on 15 December 1967.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 19 January 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 11 months, and 13 days of active service since his last reenlistment and had 7 years, 4 months, and 12 days of total active service.  He also had 69 days of lost time due to confinement.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 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.

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 is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The character of the discharge appears to commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of service, considering the circumstances of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board.  However, the offenses committed by the applicant were too numerous for the period of service in question and his overall record of service is too undistinguished for equitable relief to be appropriate.

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

___fe ___  ___lem__  __mvt ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024319	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/01/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212/UNFITNESS	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFITNESS (A51.00)	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583 	144.5000/A51.00/UNFITNESS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.