MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026396

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the facts do not add up, he did not warrant this type of discharge and that he was taken advantage of.

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

He was born on 30 April 1951.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on
27 March 1972, for 4 years with no prior service.  On 26 December 1973, the applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted on 27 December 1973, for 4 years.

On 30 May 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), f or disobeying a lawful order. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50 pay (suspended for 60 days), 14 days restriction, 14 days extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 60 days).

On 1 July 1975, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for 
disobeying a lawful order and for breaking restriction.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $150.00 pay.

Between June and July 1975, the applicant was counseled on five different occasions for disobeying orders and for failure to pay just debts.

On 22 September 1975, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s frequent acts of a discreditable nature, and his failure to pay just debts.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant acknowledged notification, he waived consideration, personal appearance and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination which found him fit for retention.

On 2 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 16 October 1975, the applicant was discharged under the provisions Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 3 years, 6 months and 20 days of creditable active service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter.  When in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.

On 24 August 1976 and 6 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)
denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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

__rgh___  __gfg___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026396	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751016	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,Chap 13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.