MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           8 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048313

	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. Walter Avery, Jr. .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time he joined the Army he was young and irresponsible, but it was his intention to serve his country honorably. He believes that his downfall was the use of drugs that started in basic training. While he was going through the discharge process he doesn’t recall having any counseling from anyone pertaining to consequences of a less than honorable discharge.  This is his last attempt to remove this injustice from his record.  The recruiters made promises that weren’t honored.  His whole Army experience has left a bad taste in his mouth.  He would like an upgrade so he can go on with his life.

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

On 31 March 1971 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He was trained as a 72C (telephone switchboard operator), achieved the grade of private first class and served until his separation on 14 January 1972.  The applicant’s date of birth is 21 August 1950.

On 3 June 1971 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for without authority absent himself from his unit and did without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

On 8 October 1971 he accepted NJP for disobeying a commissioned officer and noncommissioned officer.

On 4 November 1971 he accepted NJP for being a member of the guard did without authority go from his guard with intent to abandon.

On 17 November 1971 he accepted NJP for disobeying a noncommissioned officer.

On 19 November 1971 he accepted NJP for without authority absent himself from his unit.

On 2 December 1971 the applicant’s commander initiated separation action against him by reason of his being a substandard soldier.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the command’s intent to separate him.

On 17 December 1971 the appropriate authority approved the request for separation.  Accordingly, on 14 January 1972 the applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-212 and issued an under other than honorable discharge.

On 27 September 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.  The ADRB specifically addressed the applicant’s claim that he was promised an assignment to Panama or Vietnam, but was instead sent to Alaska.  The ADRB could find no evidence that such a promise was even made to the applicant.

AR 635-212, then in effect, established the policy and provided the procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  This regulation, in pertinent part, provided that those members with character and behavior disorders would be subject to separation for unsuitability.

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 applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that wound tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years old when he joined the Army and that there is no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.

3.  The applicant states he was not counseled on the consequences of receiving an undesirable discharge.  However, he signed a statement that he understood the allegations made by his commander, which included reference to his unsuitable conduct.  In addition, the word “Unsuitable” has a negative connotation.  It is most likely therefore, that the applicant knew that an undesirable discharge would result.  The Board is led to believe that the applicant was properly counseled on the consequences of an undesirable discharge.

4.  The Board has carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service, the infractions of discipline and the length of time that has passed since his separation.  The Board has also considered that he has submitted no evidence of post service achievements or actions taken to overcome his substance abuse.  The Board has concluded that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

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

__rwa ___  ___wdp _  ___bjl ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048313	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010308	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.40	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.