MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 February 2002                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064561

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 a general discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  No contentions submitted.

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

On 29 September 1967, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States, for 2 years.  

In November 1967, while in basic combat training, the applicant accepted three nonjudicial punishments, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for smoking while in formation, for being absent without leave from 16 to 
19 November 1967 and for failure to repair.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty, and 7 days in correctional custody. 

On 24 November 1967, the company commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  

The applicant’s military record indicates that he was counseled on numerous occasions for repeated acts of disobedience and for his total disregard for military laws and traditions.

On 29 November 1967, the applicant was referred to a Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, for an evaluation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He was diagnosed as having an inadequate personality, chronic, severe, manifested by an inadaptability, ineptness, poor judgment and social incompatibility.  He was also found mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.  He had no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 30 November 1967, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 24 January 1968, the Commanding General approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

On 31 January 1968, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had completed 4 months of creditable active service.  

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.  A discharge UOTHC 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.  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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  Therefore the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__gdp___  __tap___  __mhm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064561	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680131	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.