MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037648

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was only 17 years old when he enlisted.  He was immature and easily influenced by the wrong people which led to his discharge.  He joined the sheriff’s reserves three years ago and loves the job.  His ambition is to go to the police academy but because of his discharge Alabama will not accept him.  He is sorry for his mistake and would like a second chance so he and his family can enjoy what is left of his life.  He provides seven statements attesting to his good character -- five from law enforcement officials and one from the Circuit Court Clerk -- and his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) as supporting evidence.

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

He was born on 5 December 1955.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on              5 January 1973.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He received “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings out of basic training and AIT.  

Between September 1973 and June 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment on three occasions for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; breaking restriction, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and absenting himself from his place of duty; and absenting himself from his place of duty, respectively.

On 24 January 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of three specifications of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty and one specification of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 December 1973 to   7 January 1974.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, and to forfeit $215.00 pay for 1 month.

On 30 July 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 2 to 15 July 1974.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 60 days, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, and to forfeit $217 pay for 2 months.

On 5 August 1974, a mental status examination was completed on the applicant. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 14 August 1974, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  The commander cited the applicant’s rehabilitative transfer in April 1974 and his record of disciplinary actions as the reasons for his recommended action.

On 21 August 1974, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the separation action, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and waived representation by counsel.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf.

On 23 August 1974, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 24 September 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, waived the requirement for rehabilitation measures, and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 2 October 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with an undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness.  He had completed 1 year, 6 months and 16 days of creditable active service and had 74 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness when they were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and it was established that further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to succeed or they are not amenable to rehabilitation measures.

On 23 June 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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 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.

2.  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.  

3.  The Board notes that the applicant successfully completed basic combat training and AIT and so was aware of the Army’s standards of conduct and proved himself capable of complying with them if he wished.  Considering the number of acts of misconduct for which the applicant received punishment, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were and still are appropriate.

4.  The Board acknowledges the applicant’s young age at the time of his enlistment but also notes that thousands of similarly young soldiers are able to successfully complete their terms of enlistment.  While the Board has taken cognizance of his age and his good post-service conduct, neither of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

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

__dsj___  __kak___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037648	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19741002	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, ch 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.