MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           12 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039631

	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. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 
3 1/2 months during his enlistment in the Army and he does not feel this is a reason for a bad discharge.  He further states that he is unable to get a job or go to a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital for treatment.  He admits to having a lot of trouble during the time of his service, but that he was young, immature and just didn’t know any better.  He points out that he does not know the claim number of his records, since he lost his claim number in a house fire.  He recalls that he received a letter of “accommodation” in 1970 for his work while in Vietnam.  He further claims that he was told that he could not file for relief again and now knows that this is not true.  He states he is trying to do the best he can at this point in his life.  He submits nine personal reference letters, a personal statement of his military efforts, several Social Security Administration Supplement Income payment forms in support of his case, a copy of VA Form 9, Department of Veterans Affairs (Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals) 
dated 22 September 1999 and a copy of DD Form 293, (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From The Armed Forces of The United States) 
dated 21 October 1999, for review of his case by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) (a review for which he was not eligible).

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

That prior to the enlistment under review, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 5 January 1970, completed all of his military training and served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 15 December 1970 to 9 December 1971.  On 
21 February 1971, he was honorably discharged and on 22 February 1971, while still in the RVN, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He retained his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K20, Field Wireman.  

On 4 December 1971, he was reassigned to the Continental United States for duty at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  

On 15 March 1972, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order (DOLO) on the same date.  His punishment included extra duty for 14 days and forfeiture of $85.00 pay, suspended for 90 days. 

On 2 October 1972, he went AWOL.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control at Fort Knox on 22 January 1973.  

On 30 January 1972, evidence of record shows that the applicant received an NJP for disobeying a lawful order.  The proceedings and record of punishment are not available.

On 9 February 1973, the applicant received an NJP for failing to go his appointed place of duty on the same date.  His punishment included extra duty and restriction for 14 days, forfeiture of $85.00 pay and reduction to pay grade 
E-3, suspended for 30 days.  

On 14 February 193, evidence of record shows that he pled guilty and was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 2 October 1972 to 22 January 1973.  His approved sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 2 months.  On 27 February 1973, he was transferred to the US Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas. 

Further summarized evidence in his record file shows that on three different occasions he received Observation Reports while at the Retraining Brigade for misconduct in formation on 15 March 1973; for verbalizing a negative attitude toward returning to duty on 19 March 1973; and for failure to participate in a unit run in physical training class on 20 March 1973.

On an unknown date, his command 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. 

On 3 April 1973, the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel, waived a hearing by a board of officers, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  He received a medical and mental status evaluation clearance for separation.  

On 3 April 1973, his intermediate commander recommended discharge under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 for unfitness. 

On 3 April 1973, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the applicant’s 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 14 April 1973, the applicant was separated with a UD.  He had 1 year, 
8 months, and 13 days of creditable service and 159 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement on this enlistment.  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-4.

The applicant sought a discharge upgrade through the ADRB.  After a thorough review of his file, the ADRB denied his request on 28 November 1988.

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, an 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 prior period of honorable service and reaching pay grade E-4, his record of misconduct on the enlistment under review clearly shows 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.  However, neither of these factors overcome the serious nature of his record of misconduct and his demonstrated disregard for military authority; therefore, his youth and immaturity are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

6.  Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of this Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact his local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  

7.  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

__jdm___  __jed____  __cjs ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039631	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001019	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A5100	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	144.01	
3.	A92.00	
4.	A01.00	
5.	A92.23	
6.	A93.29