MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             29 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000034970

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Maria C. Sanchez		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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 either an honorable or general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That there is no evidence of any charges against him and that he was just discharged.

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

The applicant enlisted on 4 August 1966 for a period of 3 years and served until he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-4 on 1 August 1969.

The applicant again enlisted on 20 January 1971 and was honorably discharged on 25 February 1971 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 26 February 1971 for a period of 4 years.

On 8 March 1972 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 1 December 1971 through 12 February 1972.  His sentence consisted of reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 22 March 1972, he underwent a mental status evaluation and was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and he was able to understand the board proceedings.  It was also determined that he met the Army retention standards.

On 27 March 1972, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant indicated that he understood the substantial prejudice that he might encounter in civilian life with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and the effects it would have on his benefits.  He waived consideration of his case before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The recommendation for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 14 April 1972.  Accordingly, on 8 May 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had served 4 years and 13 days of total active service and had 94 days of lost time due to AWOL and civil confinement.

On 6 January 1983, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB denied his request on 
14 February 1983.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil 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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The records also show that he conferred with counsel and he made a conscious decision to waive his right to have his case reviewed before a board of officers.

4.  In order to justify correction of 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 this 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

___jdm __  ___ra ___  ___cg___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000034970	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/05/08	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.