MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064074

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is disabled and was only 16 years old at the time in question.  The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

At the age of 17 years, the applicant entered active duty on 26 January 1968 for a period of two years.  He was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, for basic combat training.

On 27 August 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of AWOL, four specifications (11 March 1968 to 24 March 1968) (1 April 1968 to 29 April 1968) (1 May 1968 to 5 May 1968) (17 May 1968 to 25 July 1968).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $37.00 pay per month for 6 months.  The applicant was confined in the Post Stockade at Fort Benning, Georgia.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was confined during the period 26 July 1968 to 20 October 1968.

The applicant’s personnel records contain a letter, dated 1 November 1968, which states that the applicant escaped from confinement on 21 October 1968 and was returned to the Post Stockade on 30 October 1968.

On 5 November 1968, the applicant was convicted again by a special court-martial of violating the conditions of his parole by unlawfully leaving the confines of the military reservation without the permission of the correctional officer and being AWOL from 21 October 1968 to 29 October 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $46.00 pay per month for 6 months.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not present in his records.  However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that he was discharged on 16 December 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and was issued an UOTHC discharge.  He had 1 month and 27 days of creditable service with 262 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he 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 6a(1) 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.

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 Board notes that the discharge processing papers are not in the applicant’s records.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age at the time in question, the Board also determined that this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

3.  In view of the applicant's record of AWOL for 129 days and conviction twice by special courts-martial, it does not appear that his UOTHC discharge was too severe.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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

INW_____  RJW_____  GJW_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064074	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020312	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681216	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness-Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.