MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  2 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000040264

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Barr		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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 discharge under conditions other than honorable be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was forced to go back to basic training again after he had already graduated from basic.  He got drunk and went AWOL. While he was confined at Fort Knox, he was beaten and treated unfairly.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

That he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 20 October 1965.  
He began basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 30 October 1965.  On 23 December 1965, he was enroute to the Receiving Company, United States Army Training Center, Fort Ord, California, with a reporting date of 
7 January 1966.  He was AWOL from 7 January 1966 to 24 March 1966 and declared a deserter.  He was convicted by a special court-martial at Fort Knox on 26 May 1966 and sentenced to confinement for four months at hard labor and forfeiture of $220.  He was confined at Fort Knox from 24 March to 12 July 1966. On 13 July 1966, the remainder of his sentence was suspended for two months.

On 14 July 1966, the applicant was reassigned to the 411th Transportation Company (Medium Boat) at Fort Eustis, Virginia.  Beginning on 27 September 1966, the applicant went AWOL from 27 September to 25 October 1996, again from 30 October to 8 November 1966, and again from 17-27 December 1966.  He was convicted by a special court-martial at Fort Knox for these three incidents of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement for six months at hard labor and forfeiture of $360.  He was confined at Fort Knox.

On 20 February 1967, the applicant’s commander recommended him for elimination from the service for unfitness with an undesirable discharge under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 5b, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.  The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such board, did not submit a statement on his own behalf, and waived representation by counsel.  The major general separation authority approved the request for elimination and directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge.  He was so discharged on 6 March 1967.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5b of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted 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 record of AWOL and misconduct justify an undesirable discharge for unfitness.  The applicant’s undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable is correct and just, and proper and equitable.

2.  The applicant has provided no evidence nor does his military record provide any evidence that he was beaten or treated unfairly while confined.

3.  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

___fe___  __wb____  ___tk___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040264	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001102	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670306	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144	Administrative Discharge	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.