MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  27 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000048262

	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:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his total days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement was not more than 138 days, and was less than 180 days continuous.  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 27 March 1964 as a combat engineer.

Between 23 September 1965 and November 1966, he was punished five times under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent from his appointed place of duty, for being involved in an altercation with another soldier, and for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  His punishments consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, restriction, and extra duties.

He was convicted by one summary and two special courts-martial of breaking restriction, of being AWOL from 15 to 20 April 1966 (5 days), from 5 May 1966 to 7 June 1966 (34 days), and from 7 to 11 December 1966 (5 days).  His sentence
consisted of a forfeiture of pay, confinement, and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 3 February 1967 and was found qualified for separation.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 8 June 1967, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-212, for unfitness, due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 25 days of creditable service and 138 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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 notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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

___ra__  ___gw___  ___ar___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048262	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010327	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670608	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNDESIRABLE	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.