MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            1 August 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050580

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. 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 discharge be upgraded.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes his discharge should be upgraded to honorable conditions.  In support of his request, he submitted a letter of character reference from his sister.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 26 April 1971 for a period of 3 years.  On 3 May 1971, the applicant was assigned to Fort Ord, California for basic combat training (BCT).  Upon completion of BCT, the applicant was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for advanced individual training (AIT).  On 19 August 1971, the applicant was relieved from AIT at Fort Gordon for failure to meet course objectives.  On 13 September 1971, he was reassigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for AIT in military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B, Cook.  Prior to completing AIT, the applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  

He was AWOL off and on from 14 September 1971 to 8 November 1971 when he returned to military control at Fort Ord.  The applicant was confined from 9 November to 17 November 1971.

On 16 November 1971, at Fort Ord, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days (suspended for 30 days), forfeiture of $69.00 pay for one month, and reduction to private/E-1.

On 8 December 1971, the applicant’s suspended sentence to confinement at hard labor was vacated by Summary Court-martial Order Number 1208, dated 9 December 1971.  The applicant was again confined in the Post Stockade from 8 December 1971 to 16 December 1971.

On 14 December 1971, a certificate to Bar the applicant from reenlistment was approved.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 18 April 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provision of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for two specifications of being absent from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for two months (suspended for 90 days) and 30 days’ restriction and extra duty.

On 12 January 1972, the applicant was assigned to Company A, 4th Battalion, 4th Brigade where he earned unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings.  

The specific facts concerning the applicant’s separation from the Army are not in the record; however, his DD Form 214 Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 for unfitness.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  A medical evaluation on 10 March 1972 and a mental status evaluation on 22 March 1972 cleared the applicant for separation.

On 7 June 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 11 months and 6 days of active military service and accruing 66 days of lost time.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  Furthermore, the applicant’s misconduct constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army and adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or honorable discharge.

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

__JH ____  __MHM_  __EWL__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050580	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/06/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9405.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.