MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038126

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant does not advance any argument in support of his request.

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

He enlisted in Harlem, New York on 11 August 1970 for a period of 3 years and was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo his basic training.  While in basic training he began a series of going AWOL.

On 3 September 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 30 August 1971 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 11 to 12 November 1970, 23 November to 15 December 1970, and 14 July to 15 July 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, a forfeiture of pay, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.

He was transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas on 29 September 1971 to undergo his confinement.  He completed his confinement and retraining and was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 23 November 1971 to attend his advanced individual training. 

He again went AWOL on 5 December 1971 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Birmingham, Alabama and was returned to military control at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 6 May 1972.

The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation on 13 June 1972 to discharge the applicant from the service for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation on 28 July 1972 and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 3 August 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He had served 1 years, 1 month, and 18 days of total active service and had 308 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 17 August 1982 requesting that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations and voted unanimously to deny his request.

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 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.  The applicant’s administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  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.

4.  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

__gp____  __mvt___  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038126	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/08/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT/592	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A50.00/UNFIT 	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.