MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            11 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047439

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that personal problems, which included his need to be home for the birth of his children, caused his discharge.  He also claims that his UD is a lifelong punishment and is excessive given the severity of his offenses. 

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

On 30 July 1969 he was inducted into the Army of the United States for two years.  He completed basic training at Fort Bliss, Texas and was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia to perform duties in military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  

A review of the applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he never served either overseas or in combat.  Block 33 (Appointments & Reductions) reveals that he was promoted to the highest rank he attained while on active duty, private/E-2 (PV2), on 30 November 1969 and that he was reduced to the rank of private/E-1 (PV1) on 15 December 1970 for misconduct.  Finally, block 44 (Time Lost) documents that he accrued a total of 177 days of time lost due to five separate incidents of his having gone absent without leave (AWOL) and three separate periods of confinement.  

In addition, his service record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does show an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and his trial and conviction by special court-martial on two separate occasions.  

On 23 January 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from his unit between 15 and 20 January 1970.  His punishment for this offense included a reduction in rank to private/E-1 (PV1), a forfeiture of $20.00, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.  

On 20 March 1970, he was tried by a special court-martial for breaking restriction and for being AWOL from 4 to 16 February 1970.  He was found not guilty of breaking restriction and guilty of being AWOL.  His sentence was to forfeit $35.00 per month for two months.

On 13 July 1970, he was tried by a special court-martial for two specifications of AWOL.  The first from 1 to 25 April 1970 and the second from 27 April to 18 June 1970.  He was found guilty of both specifications and was sentenced to forfeit $25.00 per month for three months, to perform hard labor without confinement for 75 days, and to be restricted for 60 days.  

The record does not include a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing.  However, there is a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) on file, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge.

The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was discharged on 12 January 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  At the time of his separation he had completed just 
11 months and 20 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued a total of 177 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

There no  indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15-year statute of limitations.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) 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.

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 contention that personal problems caused the misconduct that led to his UD.  However, after carefully examining the evidence or record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board finds no evidentiary support warranting equity relief in this case. 

2.  There is no separation packet containing the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing and the specific events that led to his discharge on file.  However, his record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  
3.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and that the characterization of service was commensurate with the applicant’s entire record of service for the enlistment under review.  

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

__dph___  ___ew __  __amc___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047439	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/01/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.