MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047399

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is deserving of a better discharge because of his more than 4 years service and hardship tour of duty.  In support of his application he provides a copy of the commander’s initial recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13; copies of his separation documents, his resume and training certificates, and a letter of support from his wife attesting to his good post service conduct.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 14 November 1966 for 3 years.  He successfully completed his initial training and served as a bridge specialist (12C).  He reenlisted in the Army on 22 August 1968 and again on 19 November 1970.

On 13 March 1967 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) (3 days).  The punishment included an oral reprimand, a forfeiture of $11.00 and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 17 August 1968 the applicant received NJP for disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $32.00.

On 25 October 1968 the applicant received NJP for operating his privately owned vehicle on post without a valid post registration and for consumption of a meal at the company mess hall without reimbursing the government.  He also signed a false statement indicating that he was authorized to subsist without making reimbursement.  The punishment included a reduction to private first class (E-3), a forfeiture of $22.00, and 14 days extra duty.

On 16 December 1968 the applicant received NJP for speeding 50 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone and for failing to obey a signal to stop given by a military policeman.  The punishment included a reduction to private (E-2) (suspended for 30 days), and a forfeiture of $25.00.

On 11 April 1973 the applicant was discharged under conditions other than honorable.  The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his records; however, his separation orders show that he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He completed 6 years, 4 months and 24 days of creditable active service and had     3 days lost time due to AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  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.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant’s administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded on the basis of his overall service and hardship duty is not consistent with the commander’s recommendation at the time of his unfitness for continued military service.

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s good post service conduct, but does not find it sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

__FNE__  __MKP___  __MHM___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047399	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chpt 13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.