MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  13 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000047230

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he does not feel that he was given a fair chance to prove that he could be a good soldier.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 6 January 1966 as a supply specialist.

On 21 October 1966, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent from his appointed place of duty on two specifications, and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 2 December 1966 of being AWOL
from 1 to 5 November 1966 (4 days) and of being absent from his appointed place of duty on 15 November 1966.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 18 January 1967, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 18 April 1967, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s character and behavior disorder which resulted in repeated commissions of petty offenses and AWOL.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 25 April 1967 and was found qualified for separation.

On 12 May 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 8 June 1967.  He had a total of 1 year, 
and 26 days of creditable service and had 127 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 April 1977.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 31 August 1977.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  In stated, in pertinent part, that individuals would be separated for unsuitability due to inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, alcoholism, or enuresis and that the individual would be furnished an honorable or general 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 notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.  

2.  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.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were  appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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

__jh___  ___ho_____  ___sp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047230	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010213	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670608	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.