MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040905

	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:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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.  He further requests that the Reason and Authority for his discharge be changed to “for the Convenience of the Government” and that his Reentry (RE) code be changed to RE-1 with a corresponding Separation Program Number (SPN).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the type of discharge that he received is too harsh considering the nature of his offenses.  In support of his appeal, he submits a letter addressed to the members of the Board dated 1 March 2000; a letter written by his sister dated 15 March 2000, explaining what she believed to be the events that lead to his going AWOL; 27 letters written by him while he was in the Army that are addressed to his common law wife; and 9 letters from friends; family members and associates explaining what they believe to be the events that led to his discharge and attesting to his good character.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which show:

He was inducted in the Army on 27 April 1964 and he successfully completed his training as a clerk.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 June 1964 until 9 June 1964.  It appears that he was placed in confinement from 22 June 1964 until 5 July 1964 as a result of his AWOL.  He also went AWOL on 4 January 1965 and he remained AWOL until he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 3 February 1965.  He was placed in confinement where he remained from 15 February 1965 until 9 April 1965.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 9 April 1965, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  He was assigned an SPN of 28B to show that he was unfit due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He was issued RE codes of RE-3 and RE-3B.  He had completed 7 months and 15 days of total active service and he had 119 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided for the separation of personnel for unfitness.  Paragraph 10b(3) provides that separation action by the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction prior to board action may direct discharge because of unfitness of an individual who has waived hearing by a board of officers.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

RE-3B indicates that a person had lost time during his last enlistment.

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.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor appears to have been appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, while the Board is empathetic, the Army found the applicant’s reasons for going AWOL to be unacceptable.  He was confined as a result of his initial AWOL and he went AWOL again knowing that adverse action would be taken against him.

4.  The evidence of record clearly shows that he had only 7 months and 15 days of total active service and he was AWOL and confined for a total of 119 days.  

5.  He was appropriately assigned RE codes of RE-3 and RE-3B because the RE codes indicate that he was not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification was waivable and that he had lost time.  

6.  The SPN that he was assigned was fitting as it indicates that he was discharged for misconduct as a result of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  Considering his acts of misconduct it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.

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

_mmd___  __ao____  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040905	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1965/04/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	583	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000	
2.  708	144.7100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.