MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 January 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058467

	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:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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:  In effect, that his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was prejudice and that he was discriminated against.

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

On 16 January 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 51B20 (Carpenter).

On 18 June 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted on 19 June 1970, for 3 three years.  On 13 April 1971, the applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted for 6 years.  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 5 June 1969, while assigned to a unit at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for advanced individual training the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $10.00 pay, 3 days restriction and extra duty.

On 2 October 1969, while assigned to the U. S. Army Pusan Base Command, Korea, the applicant accepted NJP for the wrongful possession of an unauthorized Liberty Pass (DD Form 345EK).  There is no record of punishment.

On 24 March 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for the wrongful appropriation of a 1968, ½ ton panel truck, the property of the U. S. Government.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 30 days), a forfeiture of $41.00 pay (suspended for 30 days), 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 8 May 1971, while assigned to a unit in the Republic of Vietnam, the applicant accepted NJP for three occasions of failure to repair and for being absent without leave from 1 to 3 May 1971.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 2 months.

On 8 June 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of assault.  The applicant pointed a loaded M-16 rifle at a commissioned officer in a manner likely to produce bodily harm.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 4 months, a reduction to pay grade E-1 and a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 5 months.

On 6 January 1972, while assigned to a unit at Fort Lewis, Washington, the applicant accepted NJP for two occasions of failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was 7 days restriction and extra duty.

On 4 February 1972, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 7 April 1972, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212
for apathy (an inability to expend effort constructively).

On 10 April 1972, 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.

The applicant’s medical records are unavailable.

On 27 April 1972, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.

On 2 May 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability with a general discharge. He had completed 11 months and 25 days of creditable active service during this enlistment and 54 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  That regulation provided in pertinent part, that commanders would separate a member when, in the commander’s judgment, it was clearly established that the member would not develop sufficiently to become a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unsuitability a general or an honorable 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.  The applicant's allegations regarding violation of rights and discrimination are unsupported by the evidence of record.  

3.  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.

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

5.  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

__aao___  __mhm___  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058467	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720427	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.