MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            19 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027278

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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:  In effect, that he was a good soldier, that he was injured and couldn’t do his job, and that he was unjustly charged with violations of articles 86, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ.  He further states that he believes it unjust that he received a bad discharge because of his injury. 

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

He enlisted in Kittanning, Pennsylvania on 13 November 1967 for a period of 3 years and training as a fuel and electrical systems repairman.

He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Vietnam on 2 June 1968.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 12 December 1968.

He submitted two applications for 6-month extensions of his tour in Vietnam in February and September 1969.  In both instances his requests were approved and he was granted a special 30-day leave for each extension. 

Although the specifics are not contained in his records, there are orders present in his records which show that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 26 April 1970 for misconduct and resulted in his being reduced to the pay grade of E-3.

On 28 May 1970 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for misconduct and resulted in his being reduced to the pay grade of E-1.

The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his record does contain a report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 June 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities.  He had served 2 years, 8 months, and 26 days of total active service, of which 1 year, 10 months, and 13 days were spent in Vietnam.  He was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal for his service in Vietnam.  His conduct and efficiency were rated as unsatisfactory and he was not favorably considered for the Good Conduct Medal.

A review of the applicant’s records failed to reveal any evidence that supports his contention that he was injured and that he was punished as a result of said injury.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever 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.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/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 must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and are not supported by the evidence of record.

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

___rvo __  ____jip__  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027278	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/06/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	583/UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583 	144.5000/A51.00/UNFIT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.