MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037036

	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:

	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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was told at the time of discharge that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months and he simply wants what was promised to him.  He further states that at the time he was in basic training he was hospitalized several times because he had become sick from the cold weather in South Carolina and had not been issued clothes since his arrival from Florida.  He goes on to state that he did not like the abuse he was receiving from the training cadre so he went AWOL and continued to go AWOL every time they caught him.  He goes on to state that when he was finally directed to appear before a board of officers for separation, the hearing was recorded and he was informed that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months.  He also states that a review of that hearing will confirm what he was told.

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

He was inducted in Jacksonville, Florida on 19 February 1965 and was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 20 February 1965 to undergo his basic training.

On 3 March 1965 he was admitted to the base hospital for an upper respiratory infection and a skin rash that had existed for 6 months.  He was discharged back to his unit on 11 March 1965.

On 19 April 1965 he went AWOL and remained absent until he was apprehended by the FBI in Fenville, Michigan on 27 July 1965 and was returned to military control at Fort Riley, Kansas.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 August 1965 of the aforementioned AWOL offense and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months (suspended for 4 months) and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant again went AWOL on 31 August 1965 and remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Riley on 7 January 1966.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 15 February 1966 and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months) and a forfeiture of pay.

He again went AWOL on 10 April 1966 and remained absent until he was returned to military authorities at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 15 July 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay.

On 4 January 1967 the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record and a psychiatric evaluation which opined, in effect, that the applicant had a passive-dependent personality and that there was no evidence of any emotional or psychiatric illness.

The applicant waived his rights to appear before a board of officers, declined to submit a statement in his own behalf or to consult with counsel.

The convening authority disapproved the recommendation and directed that he appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be separated for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

On 7 February 1967 the applicant’s commander notified him that he would appear before a board of officers to consider whether he should be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant again waived his rights but was directed that he would appear before a board of officers.

On 28 February 1967 the applicant appeared before a board of officers and was represented by counsel.  Evidence was presented to document his disciplinary record and the evaluation made by a psychiatrist.  Neither the applicant nor his counsel challenged any witnesses or evidence presented.

After hearing the testimony and evidence presented, the board of officers determined that the applicant had failed to adjust to military life as shown by his repeated AWOL offenses and recommended that he be discharged for unfitness and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 17 March 1967 the appropriate authority (a major general) approved the findings and recommendations of the board of officers.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 March 1967 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  He had served 5 months and 22 days of total active service and had 591 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 for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

A review of the verbatim transcript of the board proceedings failed to show any reference to the applicant’s being told that his discharge would upgraded within 6 months or any reference to the topic being discussed at all.

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 and there have never been any provisions that provided for an automatic upgrade of a discharge under that regulation.

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 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 available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  The Board finds that his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the extensive length of his absences and his otherwise undistinguished record of service over such a short period of time. 

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

__cmf ___  __fe ____  __rjw ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037036	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967/03/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 /UNFIT	
DISCHARGE REASON	583	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.