MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060436

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to general.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  He had combat service.  He suffers from problems with his health as a direct result of his service in Vietnam.  He was young and immature.  Under current standards, he would not receive the type of discharge he did.  Personal problems impaired his ability to serve.  He provides no supporting evidence.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s discharge is too harsh.  The offenses he committed were relatively minor and did not involve any extended periods of being absent without leave (AWOL), theft, or violence to others.

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

He was born on 10 January 1950.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on              16 January 1967.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

Between 29 April and 15 November 1967, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on seven occasions for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, failing to obey a lawful order, being AWOL from 1 to on or about 11 July 1967, breaking restriction, absenting himself from his assigned duty station, failing to report to his place of duty, and failing to go to his appointed place of duty, respectively.

On 24 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and to forfeit $50 pay for 1 month.  

On or about 23 January 1968, the applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to the 553d Heavy Equipment Maintenance (HEM) Company as a wheel vehicle repairman.  On 2 February 1968, he was assigned to the 632d HEM Company as a wrecker.

On 9 April 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, to forfeit $50 pay for 1 month, and to be reduced to E-1.  

On 3 May 1968, the applicant was reassigned to the 553d HEM Company as a wrecker.  

On 10 and 23 July 1968, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a lawful order for being in an off-limits area and for failing to obey a lawful order by being out after curfew, respectively.

On or about 2 September 1968, the company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The applicant was advised by counsel of the contemplated action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board; elected not to make a statement on his behalf; and waived representation by counsel.

On 24 September 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of possessing 2.3 grams of marijuana on 7 July 1968, wrongfully appropriating a military vehicle, possessing 19.3 grams of marijuana on 7 August 1968, and operating a vehicle in a reckless manner.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, to forfeit $73 pay for 6 months, and to be reduced to    E-1.

On 19 November 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 21 November 1968, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 12 days of creditable active service and had 144 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 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 Board notes the applicant’s young age at the time of his enlistment but also notes that he was given many chances to conform his behavior to military standards prior to his separation for unfitness.  There is no evidence of record to show he had combat service while in Vietnam.  The evidence of record shows that he was assigned to equipment maintenance companies there and that his service while in Vietnam was not fully honorable.  Under current standards, he most likely would have received the same characterization of service with the most likely reason for discharge being in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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.  He had an opportunity to make a statement or even to request board consideration where he could have raised personal problems as a mitigating factor yet he waived both rights.  Considering his record of disciplinary actions, the characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate.

4.  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

__jns___  __le____  __reb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060436	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010925	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681121	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.