MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036992

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because he was mentally and physically abused.  He goes on to state that he had suffered such abuse before entering the Army and that he entered the Army with the intent to make it a career.  However, he experienced the same abuse in the Army that he did in civilian life and just could not take it anymore.

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

He enlisted in St. Louis, Missouri on 22 September 1967 for a period of 2 years.  He entered the Army at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to undergo his basic training.  He completed his basic training and remained at Fort Bragg for training as a clerk.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 27 May 1968.

On 14 March 1969 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 29 June to 1 July 1968, from 1 July to 15 July 1968 and from 19 July to 26 November 1968.  He plead guilty to the charges and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

He was released from confinement on 11 May 1969 and again went AWOL on 11 July 1969.  He remained absent until he was returned to military control on 26 July 1969. 

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 October 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 14 days of total active service and had 237 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  Accordingly, considering the circumstances of this case, there appears no basis to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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 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

__amc  __  ___jam__  ___alr___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036992	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFITNESS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  592	144.5100/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.