MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:           21 August 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001054434

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that Item 13a (Character of Service) on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) should be changed to show that he was honorably discharged since Item 25 (Education and Training Completed) includes the phrase "BENEFITS OF HONORABLE DISCHARGE."  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 2 years on 29 July 1970.  After completing advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook). 

On an unknown date, the applicant departed Fort Jackson enroute to Fort Carson, Colorado.  On 5 January 1971, he went into an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  On 25 March 1971, he returned to military control at Fort Carson.

On 30 March 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against him for the above period of AWOL.  His punishment included forfeiture of $49.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days of restriction.

Evidence of record also show that the applicant was AWOL from 3 July through 29 September 1971.  There is no evidence that he was ever punished for this AWOL offense.

On 15 October 1971, the applicant was determined to be physically qualified for separation.

On 18 October 1971, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by a professionally trained psychiatrist.  He was diagnosed as having an immature personality, but no significant mental illness.  He was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to possess the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. Success through further rehabilitative efforts was determined to be poor.

On 11 November 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant after he was apprehended by military police and charged with operating a vehicle in a reckless manner by traveling 43.3 miles per hour in a zone posted for 30 miles per hour.  His punishment included forfeiture of $71.00 pay per month for 2 months.

On 17 December 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unsuitability.

On 4 January 1972, the applicant's commander prepared a certificate that stated the applicant had been reassigned to various duty positions within the unit due to poor duty performance, that he had not been present for duty at least six times, and that he had been intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness between twelve and fifteen times between July 1971 and January 1972.  The applicant admitted that he had been very intoxicated each time that he went AWOL.  

On 31 January 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He also stated that he understood the consequences of receiving a discharge that was other than fully honorable.  He waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 7 February 1972, competent authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a GD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.  

On 14 February 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability with a GD.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 17 days of active military service.  He also had 168 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

Item 25 of the applicant's DD Form 214 show that he completed the following training:  "Benefits of Honorable Discharge; UCMJ; ATP 21-114; CODE OF CONDUCT; GENEVA CONVENTION and CBR TRAINING."  

The available evidence does not show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and 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.  All new soldiers receive a class on the benefits of an honorable discharge.  Item 25 of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the training that he completed, to include training about the benefits of an honorable discharge; it has nothing to do with the type of discharge that he received.

3.  The applicant has established no basis for an upgrade of his discharge.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for the discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case. 

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

_JEV____  _BJE___  __WDB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054434	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20010821 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720214	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.