MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048433

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann 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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his discharge he was an angry young man with no respect for himself or any one else.  Since his discharge he has turned his life around.  He has been married for 28 years, has raised three kids and has not been in any trouble since being discharged under other than honorable conditions.

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

On 29 September 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63C10 (General Wheel Vehicle Repairman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4. 

Between November 1968 and November 1969, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for two occasions of having alcoholic beverages in the enlisted barracks, for being drunk and disorderly, for reckless driving and for dereliction of duty.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty, and a reduction to pay grade E-1. 

On 19 November 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM), of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 October to 3 November 1969.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-2 and a forfeiture of $40.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 17 March 1970, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 23 December 1969 to 3 February 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and 13 days and a forfeiture of $109.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 11 June 1970, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $45.00 pay.  

On 5 August 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for going AWOL from 6 July to 4 August 1970.    

On 7 October 1970, the applicant was found mentally and physically fit for retention.  He had no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 28 October 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 16 November 1970, the Commanding General approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

On 25 November 1970, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months and 4 days of creditable active service.  

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.  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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age at the time of his enlistment and his good post-service conduct; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

4.  Therefore the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__jl____  __gdp___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048433	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19701125	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.