MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  14 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001056984

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a reentry code of “1” and received the Good Conduct Medal.  He was only punished once under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was never convicted by a court-martial.

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

He was inducted and entered active duty on 15 October 1964.  He completed training as a combat engineer and was assigned to Fort, Riley, Kansas.  He was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, on 8 July 1965, for wrongfully appropriating a military vehicle.

The applicant was assigned to Vietnam as a bridge specialist from September 1965 to September 1966.  While there he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, on four occasions.  The offenses included sleeping on guard duty, dereliction of duty, absence from his place of duty, and disobeying a lawful order.  He was reduced in grade twice for these offenses.

The applicant was separated from active duty on 5 October 1966 as an overseas returnee with less than 3 months active duty service remaining.  His character of service is shown as under honorable conditions with a reentry code of “1”.  He was awarded the Good Conduct Medal but no personal decorations are shown in his available records.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided the policy for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter one provided the criteria for issuance of honorable and general discharge certificates.  Issuance of an honorable discharge was conditioned on proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current period of service.  A general discharge was issued to an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  Both an honorable and general discharge entitles the individual to full Federal rights and benefits.

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 contention that he should have an honorable discharge because he only received one punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, is without merit based on the evidence of record.  He was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, on five occasions covering a 14-month period of service.

2.  The applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, on four occasions in a combat zone.  Sleeping on guard duty and dereliction of duty in a combat zone are not considered minor offenses.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his general discharge was unfair or unjust.

3.  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.

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

__wm____  ___js___  __rb____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056984	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010814	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19661005	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A07.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.