MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            25 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060022

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no argument or evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

He was inducted in Memphis, Tennessee on 11 December 1967 and was granted a waiver for a civil conviction of larceny and receiving stolen property.  He was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky to undergo basic training.  While in basic training nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for sleeping on guard duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.  He completed his basic training and was transferred to Fort Ord, California to undergo his advanced individual training as an infantryman.

On 2 April 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 March to 31 March 1968.  His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty. 

On 8 April 1968, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

He completed his AIT and was transferred to Korea on 12 May 1968.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 10 July 1968. 

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 21 December 1968 of assaulting a noncommissioned officer (NCO) with an M-14 rifle.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay. 

On 20 January 1969, NJP was imposed against him for being out of uniform and wrongfully possessing Korean liquor.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 29 March 1969 of the wrongful possession of 11.25 grams of marijuana.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

The court-martial convening authority suspended the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement on 9 July 1969, unless sooner vacated.  However, on 11 August 1969, the sentence was vacated.

On 1 October 1969, the commander of the correctional facility submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness, based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.

The applicant acknowledged his rights and after consulting with counsel, waived his rights to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination and was deemed mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the recommendation on 11 October 1969 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 1 October 1969, the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 were incorporated into chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 October 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of total active service and had 146 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 28 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s discharge under the Special Discharge Review program and found that he was properly discharged and that there was no basis to upgrade his discharge.

On 18 April 1979, while incarcerated in a Tennessee Correctional Facility, the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge and a personal appearance was granted before the ADRB traveling panel on 13 June 1979.  He appeared before that board represented by counsel and contended that his problems began when he arrived in Korea, got mixed up with the wrong crowd and began using drugs and alcohol.  The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and voted to deny his application for an upgrade of his discharge. 

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time and which was incorporated into Army Regulation 635-200, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  The applicant’s indisciplines began immediately upon entry into the service and continued throughout his entire period of service.  Accordingly, his record of undistinguished service and disciplinary record does not warrant further relief.

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

___kan __  __reb ___  ____rjw _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060022	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/10/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/a51.00/unfit	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.