MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049748

	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:

	Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant provides no argument in support of his application for an upgrade of his discharge; however, he submits six character references, a copy of a death certificate, a copy of a school completion certificate, a medical examination, a business license with associated picture identification cards, and a copy of his General Educational Development (GED) completion certificate.

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

He enlisted in Brooklyn, New York on 18 February 1970 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed his training as a cook and was transferred to Alaska on 4 August 1970.  

On 10 October 1970 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

He had NJP imposed against him again on 12 November 1970 for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction (suspended). 

On 8 February 1971 NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty, for disobeying a lawful order from a senior NCO and for using disrespectful language towards a senior NCO.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, restriction and extra duty.

He had NJP imposed against him again on 2 March 1971 for disobeying a lawful order from a senior NCO.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 4 March 1971 the applicant’s commander submitted a request to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  He cited the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant elected not to make a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 18 March 1971. 

On 5 April 1971 NJP was imposed against him for leaving his guard post.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.  He appealed the punishment contending that it was too harsh and the appellate authority approved a reduction in the forfeiture of pay by one dollar.

On 16 April 1971 NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave from 11 April to 12 April 1971 and for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 23 April 1971 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation for elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s disciplinary history, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, his failure to respond to a rehabilitative transfer, marginal job efficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, his demonstrated lack of desire to conform to military life, and his failure to attempt to improve his job performance and attitude towards the Army.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant’s counsel submitted a statement in the applicant’s behalf, whereas he asserted that the applicant should be separated for unsuitability instead of unfitness.   

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 23 June 1971 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate for unfitness. 

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 June 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 4 months and 13 days of total active service and was separated on temporary records and a soldier’s affidavit. 

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

The letters of support submitted by the applicant with his application serve to praise the applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness and work ethic.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The supporting documents submitted by the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief given the applicant’s undistinguished record of service over such a short period of time.

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

__mvt___  ____mm_  __jhk  ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049748	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/04/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/06/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00/UNFIT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.