MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           18 September 2001                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058144

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be recharacterized to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he requests that his discharge be reinstated to a general discharge because he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay.  He believes that the Vietnam Conflict was wrong even though he did not fight in Vietnam and that he “gave up two years of his life for things the U.S. Government still believes to be wrong today.”  He contends that he deserves justice.  

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

The applicant was inducted in the Army on 21 September 1967.  He was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for basic combat training, but he did not complete the training.

On 30 January 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 October 1967 to 29 October 1967 and from 30 October 1967 to 8 January 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for six months.  The portion of the sentence adjudging forfeiture was suspended for six months.

The applicant was also convicted by a special court-martial on 14 May 1968 of being AWOL from 12 February 1968 to 13 April 1968 and of making a false official statement.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for six months.

On 6 May 1969, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6(a), for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  

On 15 May 1969, the applicant was convicted again by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 18 November 1968 to 27 April 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for six months.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric examination on 19 May 1969 and was diagnosed as having a passive aggressive personality.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant received “1 Article 15”; however, this Article 15 is not found in the applicant’s personnel records.

On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing before an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable were issued to him. 

On 22 May 1969, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

On 25 June 1969, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 8 July 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a, for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had a total of 26 days of creditable service and 621 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay and that he deserves “justice”.  However, the Board noted that the hard labor was imposed as the result of conviction by court-martial.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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.

6.  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

JL______  KAH____  MHM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058144	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010918	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690708	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212,paragraph 6a(1)	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.