MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            28 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024352

	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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went home on leave and had no money to return to his duty station, so he called the military police (MP) at Fort Sheridan, Illinois and they sent two MP’s to get him.  He goes on to state that he was handcuffed and taken to Fort Riley, Kansas.  He further states that after a couple of months he was informed that he could go back to Fort Campbell, Kentucky and work as a chauffeur or that he could go home and he would receive a general discharge.  He continues by stating that he chose to go home; however, he received an undesirable discharge instead of the general discharge he was promised.  He also states that he was 20 years of age at the time, that he had a very young wife and a baby, and he believed that he needed to be home and that he was the only one that could handle the problems.  

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

The applicant enlisted in Detroit, Michigan on 8 June 1966 for a period of 3 years under the airborne training enlistment option.  He was 18 ½ years of age at the time of his enlistment and was single.

He was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for his basic training and his record reflects that he was charged with 2 days of AWOL from 4 July to 5 July 1966.  He was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia on 29 August 1966 to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).

On 17 November 1966, while still in AIT, he was convicted by a special        court-martial of being AWOL from 3 October to 25 October 1966.  His was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.  The convening authority suspended the confinement at hard labor until 17 March 1967 and subsequently remitted it when the applicant completed his AIT.  The applicant was then transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia to undergo airborne training.

On 16 January 1967 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 28 December 1966 to 10 January 1967.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 25 March 1967 the applicant was transferred to Vietnam for duty as a grenadier.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 10 July 1967 for being AWOL from 23 June to 26 June 1967.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 16 August 1967 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being out of uniform.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 14 September 1967 of disobeying a lawful order to go on a night ambush and for being out of uniform.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

He completed his tour in Vietnam on 30 March 1968 and was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He went AWOL on 26 July 1968 and remained absent until he surrendered to civil authorities in Chicago, Illinois and was transferred to Fort Sheridan, Illinois.  He was then transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas. 

On 24 September 1968 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 26 July to 29 August 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

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 25 November 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 22 days of total active service and had 176 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  The convening authority remitted the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor effective the date of his discharge.

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 have been noted by the Board.  However, the offenses committed by the applicant were too numerous and too serious 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	AR1999024352	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/11/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212/UNFITNESS.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583 	144.5000/A51.00/UNFITNESS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.