MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043640

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he requested a discharge because his father was dying.  He was given a Compassionate Reassignment with a possibility of a discharge.  He was unaware of the type of discharge that he was receiving until the day of his discharge.  He further states that his commander told him that he would get nothing less than a general discharge. 

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

On 27 September 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.  His military occupational specialty was 94B10 (Cook).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 23 November 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $25.00 pay.

On 8 March 1972, the applicant applied for a Compassionate Reassignment because his father was ill.  On 5 May 1972, his application for reassignment was approved.  On 6 May 1972, the applicant was reported for being absent without leave (AWOL). 

On 7 November 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 6 May to 20 September 1972.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 26 January 1973, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for three occasions of failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

On 9 February 1973, the applicant applied for a Hardship Discharge, his request was denied.  The applicant’s request was denied because the command believed, that the applicant’s financial difficulties were not of such a nature to warrant a Hardship Discharge and that the applicant’s reassignment to the same area of his family made it possible for frequent visits home to assist his mother.  The command further commented that the family responsibility to assist the mother could be shared by the applicant’s brother who was also in the military.

On 15 March 1973, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 8 to 15 March 1973.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $75.00 pay and 14 days extra duty.

The applicant’s military record indicates that he was reported for being AWOL on two more occasions from 24 July to 22 August 1973 and from 23 August to 
4 November 1973.  However the particulars are missing from his files. 

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 19 December 1973, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s lack of motivation, his unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency, his continuous periods of AWOL and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  

On 15 January 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 
23 January 1974, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 1 year, 5 months and 20 days of creditable active service and 247 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 separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 

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 contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The applicant was properly advised by legal counsel of his rights and the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a discharge UOTHC.

3.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  There was no indication that the choice made was under coercion or duress.

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

__jhl___  __clg___  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043640	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740123	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.