MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:  7 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000041272

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 he was not given any counseling, just a choice of a court-martial or discharge.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 24 January 1968.  He was trained as a supply clerk and was later assigned to Vietnam.  While there he was twice punished under Article 15, UCMJ; once, for absence from his place of duty and once for wrongfully appropriating government property.  On 11 June 1969 he was convicted buy special court-martial of 1 day AWOL, being in an off limits area, and leaving his post as a sentinel.

While still in Vietnam he was command referred for a psychiatric evaluation for possible separation.  There was no underlying psychiatric disorder.  He was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

On 13 June 1969 he was notified of contemplated separation for unfitness.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf.  The recommendation for separation was forwarded, citing his past disciplinary record, his record of counseling, and his reassignments for rehabilitation purposes.

The separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions.  Effective 27 June 1969 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had 1 year, 5 months, and 3 days creditable service and 1 day lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  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.

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

__gp___  ___pm__  ___mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041272	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690627	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.