MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041088

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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 a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was issued to him in 1969 when he was only 19 years of age. It was based on his actions involving insubordination and rebellion against authority because of what he then viewed as discriminatory practices against him due to his limited education.  He contends that his actions
were never the result of cowardice or reluctance to perform combat duty.  He volunteered for both the airborne and Vietnam.  He states that he has always regretted his actions that led to the undesirable discharge.  For the past several years, a time span of well over two decades, he has attempted to live his life in a manner that would, if possible, help to make amends for his earlier indiscretions. In support of his application he has provided letters and statements from individuals who are familiar with his character and personality as an adult citizen.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 18 July 1966 for 3 years.  He had only completed       8 years of formal schooling.  The applicant successfully completed his initial training and the Basic Airborne Course.  He was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for duty as a wheel vehicle mechanic (63B).

On 1 August 1967 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 2 days.  The punishment included a reduction to the pay grade of    E-2, suspended for 6 months and a forfeiture of $25.00.  0n 29 December 1967 the suspension was vacated for further misconduct and he was reduced to pay grade E-2.

On 10 January 1968 the applicant received NJP for being AWOL 10 days.  The punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $50.00 for 2 months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days and a reprimand for unacceptable lack of self-discipline for overstaying his leave.

On 20 June 1968 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL 60 days.  The sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $64.00 per month for 6 months and 6 months confinement at hard labor.

On 12 December 1968 the applicant was again convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for 31 days.  The punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $97.00 per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

On 16 January 1969 the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The commander stated that the applicant had received NJP’s and two special courts-martial for AWOL.  He was reassigned to another unit and another installation in an effort to rehabilitate him.  He clearly showed that he had absolutely no respect for authority.  He failed to respond to all attempts to rehabilitate and return to useful service.
 
The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, and on          26 February 1969, the applicant was discharged under conditions other than honorable, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and issued an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year, 9 months and 10 days of creditable active service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for 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 Certificate 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 that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided sufficient evidence to support upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s young age, limited amount of education at the time, and his many years of good post-service citizenship.  However, these in and of themselves are not sufficiently mitigating to overcome the applicant’s number and severity of violations and defiant attitude.

4.  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

__GDP___  __ALR__  __BFH___DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200041088	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	212	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.