MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039413

	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. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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:  That it has been 31 years since his discharge and he believes that to continue to endure the stigma of a less than honorable discharge is an injustice.  In support of his appeal, he submits a letter from a retired sheriff dated 2 March 2000, a letter from the pastor of his church dated 10 February 2000 and a letter from his clinical psychologist dated 10 February 2000 all attesting to his character and post-service conduct.

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

On 4 January 1966, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a field artillery repairman.  On 4 May 1966, he was promoted to the pay grade E-2.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 8 August 1966, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 August until 6 August 1966.  His punishment consisted of an oral admonishment and reprimand and a forfeiture of pay.

On 13 August 1966 he was promoted to the pay grade of E-3.

On 2 November 1966, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order and for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, restriction and extra duty.

He had NJP imposed against him on 9 December 1966, for being AWOL from 7 December until 8 December 1966.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 18 May 1967, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL on 9 May 1967.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 10 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of failure to report for duty, failure to obey a lawful order and being drunk and disorderly. His sentence consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 5 August 1967, he had NJP imposed against him for being AWOL on 31 July 1967 and for being incapacitated for proper performance of duty as a result of previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor.  The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 3 February 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 4 March 1968, of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order and for being incapacitated for proper performance of duty as a result of previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor.  His sentence consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 12 April 1968, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 21 March until 26 March 1968.  His sentence consisted of hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.

He had NJP imposed against him on 24 July 1968, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 25 October 1968, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army had been initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his right to have his case considered before a board of officers.  He opted to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement he indicated that he had severe family problems which contributed to his difficulties with the military.  He also indicated that he believed that his family problems were straightening out and that he could be a productive soldier.

The recommendation for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 27 November 1968.  Accordingly, on 29 November 1968, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to undesirable habits and traits of character rendering retention in the service undesirable.  He had completed 2 years, 8 months and 20 days of total active service and he had a total of 66 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 15 May 1973, 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.  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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s post-service conduct has been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence of record clearly shows that he was tried and convicted by a summary court-martial three times and he had NJP imposed against him on seven separate occasions for his acts of misconduct.  It does not appear that the undesirable discharge issued to him is unjust or too severe considering his numerous offenses.  

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

__mdm__  __js_____  _kah____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039413	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/11/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	583	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  592	144.5100	
2.  		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.