MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048245

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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 be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant has not advanced any argument or evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

He enlisted in Detroit, Michigan on 15 February 1972 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed his basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas on 17 April 1972, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as a Hercules missile crewman.

On 12 May 1972 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

He completed his AIT, was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 23 June 1972 and was transferred to Germany on 18 July 1972.

On 4 December 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to meet military standards of appearance.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 3 January 1973, NJP was imposed against him for being drunk on guard duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) on 3 May 1973 due to the unauthorized use and possession of illegal drugs, negligence and delinquency in the performance of his duties and lack of motivation towards assignment involving nuclear duties.

On 8 June 1973, NJP was imposed against him for violating lawful orders from his commander and the illegal possession and use of marijuana in the hashish form.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.  This was the applicant’s second possession offense.

On 21 June 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for disobeying written and verbal instructions from a senior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. 

The applicant’s commander initiated action to bar the applicant from reenlistment on 22 June 1973 based on his disciplinary record, his record of unsatisfactory performance of duties, and his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions.  The applicant acknowledged the commander’s actions and elected not to submit matters in his own defense.  Accordingly, the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment. 

The applicant’s commander also initiated action on 22 June 1973 to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness based on his involvement in frequent acts of a discreditable nature with military authorities and habitual shirking.  After consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 July 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness and an established pattern of shirking.  He had served 1 year, 5 months and 10 days of total active service. 

There is no evidence to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s     15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance 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 and/or shirking.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  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.

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 ___  ___gp___  __dh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048245	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/07/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFITNESS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.