MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  10 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024667

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 general discharge from a prior period of active duty be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That he made up his lost time.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 23 December 1968 and had a lousy Christmas.  After completion of training as a cook he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.  While there he was twice punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from his place of duty.

The applicant was reassigned to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey for compassionate reasons effective 15 September 1969.  On 24 October 1969 he was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from his place of duty.  He was convicted on 1 April 1970 by a special court-martial of two AWOL’s totaling 38 days.  He was AWOL again from 29 May to 1 June 1970.

A 2 June 1970 psychiatric examination resulted in a diagnosis of inadequate personality.  The examining physician did not believe that the applicant would adjust to military service and become a productive soldier.  He also reported that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had no physical or mental defects to warrant disposition through medical channels and was cleared for administrative separation.

On 30 June 1970, after consultation with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial that could result in a dishonorable discharge.  A 6 July 1970 endorsement from the unit commander notes that the applicant was pending court-martial for two violations of absence from his place of duty, two violations of disobeying a lawful order, and one violation of disrespect.  On 26 August 1970 he was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ for AWOL from 15 to 17 August 1970.

The applicant was AWOL again from 16 September to 20 October 1970.  There is no record of punishment for this AWOL offense in the available record.  On 5 March 1971 a bar to reenlistment was approved.

Effective 22 March 1971 the applicant was discharged under authority of Army Regulation 635-200 under honorable conditions by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS).  He had 2 years creditable service and 90 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides for the issuance of a general discharge for an individual whose service is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  The specific reason for such separation was to be included in the individual’s personnel record.

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.  Notwithstanding the absence of a specific basis for the applicant’s separation under honorable conditions at ETS, it is this Board’s opinion that his significant record of indiscipline clearly warranted a less than fully honorable discharge.  It is just as likely that he could have been processed for separation for misconduct prior to ETS and received an undesirable discharge which would have more appropriately characterized his service.

2.  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.

3.  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

__VC___  __KW___  ___JS___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024667	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710322	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A03.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.