MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036076

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn 		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner 		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that draft dodgers received good discharges and they never served in Vietnam.  He contends that he completed his service by making up his AWOL time.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation dated 29 December 1999.

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

The applicant was inducted on 6 December 1966.  He successfully completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, for advanced individual training (AIT).  While in AIT, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being drunk in public.

On 18 August 1967 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of being AWOL from 12 June 1967 to 3 July 1967 and from 16 July 1967 to 28 July 1967. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, reduction to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 6 months.  On 19 August 1967 the convening authority suspended the period of confinement for 6 months. 

On 11 July 1968 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of being AWOL from 15 April 1968 to 19 June 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 6 months and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 12 July 1968.  

On 13 May 1969 the applicant was separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for expiration of term of service.  He had served 2 years of total active service with 159 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-9d(1), in effect at the time, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge will be conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.  The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that a member’s service will be characterized as honorable by the commanding officer authorized to take such action or higher authority when a member is eligible for or subject to separation and it has been determined that he merits an honorable discharge under the following standards:  (a) has conduct ratings of at least “Good”; (b) has efficiency ratings of at least “Fair”; (c) has not been convicted by a general court-martial; and (d) has not been convicted more than once by a special court-martial.” 
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-9e(1), in effect at the time, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that a general discharge may be issued if an individual has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment period of obligated service or any extension thereof.   

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 separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The applicant was convicted by two special courts-martial.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board noted the applicant committed several incidents of a discreditable nature and was disciplined with one nonjudicial punishment and two special courts-martial during his two-year period of service.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that his military behavior and performance of duty did not warrant an honorable discharge.   

4.  The applicant’s contentions were noted by the Board.  However, the applicant has failed to convince the Board through evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

5.  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.

6.  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

CMF____  FE_____  RJW_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036076	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000517	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690513	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200   	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expiration term of service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.