MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057684

	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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his reason for being absent without leave (AWOL) were because his father died after he entered the service.  His mother and his younger siblings needed him at home.  His commander told him that he could get a hardship discharge in three weeks.  He could not wait three weeks because his family had no income.  His commander also told him that he could get an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that would change to a general discharge under honorable conditions within three months.  This never materialized.  He was proud to have been chosen for aviation training.  He was proud to be in the Army and he did his best.  His family needed him more than the Army.  He is requesting a general discharge under honorable conditions as he was promised when he was discharged.

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

On 7 January 1966, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67A10 (Aircraft Maintenance Crewman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 13 April 1966, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for AWOL from 11 to 13 April 1966.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $20.00 pay, 7 days restriction and extra duty.

On 1 September 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 18 July to 16 August 1966.  He was sentenced to 
6 months confinement at hard labor (CHL) (suspended for 6 months).  

The applicant’s official military records show that he was AWOL from 
26 September to 6 December 1966.  However, the circumstances surrounding the AWOL is missing from his record.

On 12 December 1966, the unexecuted portion of the 6 months CHL was remitted and duly executed.  The applicant was confined to the Post Stockade, Fort Benning, GA.  

On 29 March 1967, the 6 months CHL was suspended for 2 months.

On 1 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by an SPCM of being AWOL from 23 April to 11 July 1967.  He was sentenced to CHL for 6 months.
The applicant was confined to the Post Stockade, Fort Benning, GA.

On 25 August 1967, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The commander cited 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.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf but declined to do so.

On 25 August 1967, 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 August 1967, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 29 August 1967, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.
He completed 8 months and 17 days of creditable service and had 345 days of lost time including confinement.

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.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharges or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

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

3.  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

__cla___  __clg___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057684	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670829	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.