MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043350

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg 		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) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was immature and could not adjust to all aspects of Army life.  He believes that if his discharge is upgraded, he would be able to provide a better life for his family and, if he should die, they would get a better pension.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 26 March 1965.  Following all required military training, he was awarded MOS (military occupational specialty) 71H, Personnel Specialist, and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.

The applicant was reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Ordinance Battalion (Ammunition), Fort Bliss, Texas.  On 6 October 1965, the unit was assigned to Vietnam.  He served there from 15 October 1965 to 17 December 1966, when his unit returned to Fort Bliss.  During his tour of duty in Vietnam, he accumulated 4 nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Three of the four NJPs were for departing his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  The applicant was also found guilty by special court-martial of two specifications of AWOL and one specification of disobeying a lawful command.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months (suspended), forfeiture of $80.00 pay per month for 2 months and reduction in grade to private/E-1.

On 9 May 1967 at Fort Bliss, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of two specifications of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement for 4 months (suspended) and forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 4 months.

On 6 July 1967, the applicant accepted another NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 13 October 1967, the applicant accepted yet another NJP for 2 specifications of AWOL.

On 2 January 1968 at Fort Bliss, the applicant was seen by the chief psychiatrist, Mental Hygiene Consultation Division for pre-trial evaluation.  The applicant was diagnosed as a schizoid personality and was cleared for separation.  It was also noted that the applicant was free of mental disease and able to distinguish right from wrong.

On 4 January 1968, the applicant was again found guilty by special court-martial of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $85.00 pay per month for 4 months.
The applicant’s separation documents are not in the file.  However, the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He was discharged on 5 June 1968 with a UD after completing 2 years, 5 months, and 8 days active military service and accruing 272 days of lost time.  He was credited with the Vietnam Service Medal with 3 Bronze Service Stars and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device 1960.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a 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 was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service and considered all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The Board finds that the character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention; however the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's desire to provide a better future for his family is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  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 the above requirement.

5.  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

__jh____  __slp____  __hbo ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043350	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010213	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680605	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.6400	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.9307	
2.	144.9301	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.