MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           14 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039498

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, 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 undesirable discharge (UD) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his enlistment, he was young and immature. His ability to serve was easily influenced by letting others make major decisions for him, which impaired his judgement in understanding the benefits the military could offer him.  He points out that when he joined the service he was not aware of the current events going on around him.  For example, even though he joined the service during the Vietnam era “he did not know we were at war”.  Now at the age of 41, some of the major accomplishments in his life have been earning a college degree, being able to acknowledge the struggles “his” people went through during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and the consequences of his behavior were inappropriate, thereby bringing shame to his family.  He therefore submits his case in hopes of resolving his current status.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 December 1973 for 3 years.  He completed his basic combat training and then his advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K20, Field Wireman.  He was then assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

While assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The first was for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards his superior officer and failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 2 July 1974; the second on 4 October 1974 for operating a privately owned vehicle without taillights and an operator’s license; and the third on 23 November 1974 for wrongfully possessing 0.02 grams more or less of a controlled substance, to wit: Marihuana.  His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.  He only appealed his first punishment, which was denied.  

The applicant was listed as being absent without leave (AWOL) from 
10-12 February 1975.  On 13 April 1975, he was advanced to pay grade E-2.  

On 23 April 1975, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 10-12 February 1975, for wrongful and intentionally having in his possession two controlled substances: 1.02 grams of Marihuana and 14 squares of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) on 9 February 1975.  His sentence included forfeiture of $229.00 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.  

On 1 May 1975, the SPCM convening authority approved the sentence and directed that the sentence for 6 months confinement be duly executed. 

On 7 May 1975, he was transferred for confinement and retraining to Fort Riley, Kansas, where his performance and behavior did not improve.  All rehabilitative efforts failed to adjust his behavior, attitude and lack of motivation and he received repeated counseling statements.

On 5 June 1975, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provision of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of 
unfitness – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He also received a medical and mental status evaluation and was cleared for separation. 

On 10 June 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same day, his intermediate commander recommended approval.  On 11 June 1975, the senior intermediate commander recommended approval. 

On 12 June 1975, the separation authority approved his separation with a UD under the provision of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

On 16 June 1975, the applicant was separated with a UD.  He had 1 year, 
2 months, and 1 day of creditable service, with 123 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  The highest rank he attained was pay grade E-3.

In 1981, the applicant sought a discharge upgrade through the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  The ADRB denied his request on 26 October 1981.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 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.  A UD 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 this requirement.

2.  Notwithstanding his completion of training and reaching pay grade E3, his record of misconduct clearly showed that he was unwilling or unable to further perform his duties as a soldier consistent with the Army standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance by military personnel.

3. 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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time of enlistment, with an apparent lack of maturity is accepted by the Board.  Further, his good post service conduct and actions are commendable.  However, neither of these factors overcome the serious nature of the offenses and his demonstrated disregard for military authority and therefore are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

6.  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

__rvo___  __mkp___  __eja____  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Boards for Correction
of military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039498	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000914	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750616	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.