MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060321

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable or general.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his youth and immaturity, the availability of alcohol and illegal drugs in the military and his alcohol abuse were factors which led to his discharge. 

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

At age 17, with parental consent, the applicant enlisted on 22 March 1966 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Bliss, Texas.  

While in advanced individual training, on 16 August 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 June 1966 to 29 July 1966.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $64 per month for 6 months.  On 
20 August 1966 the convening authority approved the sentence.        

On 27 February 1967 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 31 August 1966 to 20 December 1966 and escaping from lawful confinement in the Post Stockade.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 4 months and to forfeit $60 per month for 4 months.  On 6 March 1967 the convening authority approved the sentence.  On 10 April 1967 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 4 months was suspended for 3 months.

On 7 February 1968 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 9 July 1967 to 27 October 1967, from 28 October 1967 to 31 December 1967 and from 1 January 1968 to 9 January 1968.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $64 per month for 6 months.  On 7 February 1968 the convening authority approved the sentence.  On 10 April 1968 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 
6 months was suspended for 6 months.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records indicate that on 16 April 1968 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 6 months and 21 days of total active service and had 544 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant 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 6 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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
  
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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.  While the Board is empathic, the applicant’s stated reasons of youth and immaturity are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that the availability of alcohol and illegal drugs in the military and his alcohol abuse were factors which led to his discharge.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support these contentions. 

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s brief record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  The Board also determined that his record of service which included three special court-martial convictions and 544 days of lost time was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge. 

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
6.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation  appear to be appropriate.

7.  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.

8.  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

RVO___  DPH_____  RKS_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060321	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011016	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680416	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.