MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060104

	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:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he did not do anything to deserve the discharge he received.

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

He was inducted in Newark, New Jersey on 8 September 1967 at the age of 23.  At the time of his induction he indicated that his mother resided in Newark and his father resided in Detroit, Michigan at an unknown address.

He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo his basic training and on 8 October 1967, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 30 November 1967 and charges were preferred against him.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 14 December 1967 of the AWOL offense and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.

He again went AWOL on 16 January 1968 and remained absent until he was apprehended on 10 June 1968 and was returned to military control, where charges were again preferred against him.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 25 June 1968 of the AWOL charges and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a forfeiture of pay.  He was transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas to serve his confinement.

On 18 September 1968, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He indicated that the applicant demonstrated a complete disregard for military authority and indicated no desire to return to duty.  He recommended that the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 20 September 1968 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 September 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had served 1 year and 16 days of total active service of which 290 days were lost due to AWOL and confinement.  He still had not completed his basic training at the time of his discharge. 

On 9 September 1974, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He contended that at the time he was in the service, he was too ill to be a good soldier.  The ADRB found no evidence to support his contentions and denied his appeal on 10 January 1975.

He again applied to the ADRB on 9 July 1979 and was granted a personal appearance before that board, represented by counsel.  He contended that he went AWOL because his mother and father were involved in an automobile accident, that he was an only child and that when he was refused leave, he departed AWOL to take care of his parents.  He stated that he went AWOL the second time because he feared another court-martial and possible confinement.  The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and again denied his appeal on 24 November 1980.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, 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

__cla____  __hbo___  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060104	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/09/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.