MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  2 February 2000                                
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999025228

	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. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 a general discharge or a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that at the time of his discharge he drank too much alcohol, he had personal problems, he was young, he was immature and that he was influenced by his peers.  Additionally, he states that he smoked “hash” only once.  He received nonjudicial punishment and he has never smoked again.  He has turned his life around and he is pursuing his education.  He wants his discharge upgraded so that he can join the American Legion.  He submits his DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) and a statement written in his own behalf in support of his request.

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

That on 18 March 1972, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service).  He enlisted with a declaration of parental consent signed by both of his parents.  In September 1972, he was assigned to Germany.

On 20 September 1973, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of stealing nine fatigue shirts, 12 pair of fatigue trousers and three field jackets.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 80 days.

The applicant’s record is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted 
DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that he signed at the time of separation.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that he was separated on 26 December 1973, under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a(1), Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness, involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.    He was separated with a UD.  He had accrued 1 year,
8 months and 17 days of creditable service and he had 22 days lost time.

The applicant made application to the Army Discharge Review Board regarding the period of enlistment under review in March 1999, well past that Board’s 
15-year statute of limitation.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13-5a(1) contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when the member is involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  A UD was generally 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 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.  In the absence of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge and evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge process, the Board must presume regularity in the discharge process.

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and that he had personal problems.  However, the Board found that he met entrance qualification standards to include age after parental consent was obtained.  Further, the Board concluded that there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.  There were many legitimate avenues he could have pursued and received help with his personal problems in lieu of the misconduct for which he was discharged.

4.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his achievements since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely on post service conduct.

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

CMW____  JEA____  LE______  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025228	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731226	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 13-5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.