MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027799

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  He submits no evidence or statement to support his request.

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

He enlisted on 2 July 1965 for a period of 3 years.  Although he completed basic combat and advanced infantry training, he failed to complete airborne training due to AWOL.

On 14 December 1965, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for AWOL from 10 December to 13 December 1965.

On 24 January 1966, he was administered NJP for AWOL from 19 December 1965 to 3 January 1966.

On 21 April 1966, the applicant was tried by special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 21 February 1966 to 8 April 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

On 26 April 1966, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  Although the separation proceedings were processed and approved by the separation authority on 31 May 1966, the discharge was never effected because the applicant went AWOL on 24 May 1966.

On 14 October 1966, the applicant was tried by special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 24 May 1966 to 20 September 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

On 11 February 1967, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers. He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 8 March 1967, the separation authority, a major general, approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 14 March 1967 at Fort Benning, Georgia.  He had 8 months and 18 days creditable service and 355 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__rgh___  ___mdm_  __jps____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027799	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670314	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.