MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037777

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that the type of discharge that he received was too severe considering the nature of his offenses.  In support of his appeal, he submits statements from six of his associates attesting to his character.

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

On 1 September 1967, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of 
E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a light weapons infantryman and was transferred to Vietnam on 17 February 1968.

On 1 May 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, missing movement, being disrespectful toward his superior officer and willfully disobeying a lawful command.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 6 months, a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 18 October 1968 for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 26 October 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his unit, being in an off limits area (Saigon) and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 17 December 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for establishing a pattern of shirking his duties.  He had completed 1 year, 3 months and 6 days of total active service and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 23 February 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the 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.  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.

2.  In view of his acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.

3.  The supporting statements from the applicant’s associates attesting to his character have been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant had NJP imposed against him on two different occasions and he was convicted by a special court-martial as a result of his repeated acts of indiscipline.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.

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

__ao ___  ___le____  ___vbc__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037777C	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/12/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	583	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  713	144.7110/A71.10	
2.  714	144.7130/A71.30	
3.  		
4.		
5.		
6.