MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           30 November 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043398

	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:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 one issued under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was having marital difficulties; that these difficulties were the basis for his misconduct; and that he was not offered proper counseling to solve his problems. 

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

On 3 June 1974, after obtaining an age waiver, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  The applicant was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana for basic combat training (BCT).  On 2 August 1974, after successfully completing BCT, the applicant was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia for advanced individual training (AIT).  On 16 September 1974, the applicant departed AIT in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and remained absent until 2 October 1974.  On 3 October 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $75.00 pay and 14 days extra duty.  He was dropped from his original AIT Course.

On 18 November 1974, the applicant was placed in a new AIT Course.  During this 8-week period of training, the applicant was married.  Upon completion of AIT, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 43K (Canvas and Webbed Equipage Repairman) and he was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas for his first permanent duty assignment.

On 17 January 1975, the applicant accepted an NJP for dereliction of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $80.00 pay and 7 days' extra duty.

On 27 October 1975, the applicant accepted an NJP for recklessly operating a truck.  His punishment consisted of reduction in grade from private first class/E-3 to private/E-2 (suspended), 30 days' restriction, and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

On 20 January 1976 the applicant accepted an NJP for falsely pretending to be authorized subsistence in the dining facility.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade from private first class/E-3 to private/E-2, 10 days' restriction, and extra duty.  

On 12 February 1976, a mental status evaluation and physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 13 February 1976, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived a board of officers, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 24 February 1976, the company commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a(1), chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unfitness with a UD.  The commander recommended the applicant be separated from the Army due to an established pattern of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  He stated that the applicant had a history of absenteeism that affected his duty performance and that his initial enlistment contract could not be met due to his excessive absenteeism during AIT.  He further stated that the applicant’s undisciplined nature caused great dissension and that he continued to be a problem soldier even though his chain of command had counseled him.

On 26 February 1976, the intermediate commander recommended discharge with a UD and on 1 March 1976, the senior commander recommended approval of the discharge with a UD.

On 8 March 1976, the applicant accepted an NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $90.00 pay, 14 days' restriction, and extra duty.

On 10 March 1976, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation with a UD.  Accordingly, on 23 March 1976, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 4 days of creditable military service and accruing 17 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  Paragraph 13-5a(1) of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of unfitness.

On 22 December 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 noted the applicant’s contentions that his marital problems were the basis for his misconduct and that he was not offered proper counsel and guidance to solve his problems.  The applicant has not shown, and the record does not support, that marital problems caused his misconduct or that his chain of command failed to provide assistance to him.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

3.  The applicant’s many acts of misconduct constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army and adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These acts of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant ‘s service below that meriting a general or honorable 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 this 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

__jns____  __cla____  __tl ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR20000433398	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760323	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Paragraph 13-5a(1)	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.9307	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.