MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066942

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like his UD upgraded in order to be eligible for veterans benefits and because it would be appropriate based on his service to his country. 

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

On 1 October 1969, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed training in, was awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D (Armor Reconnaissance Specialist).  

The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Korea), and Expert Marksmanship Badge (Rifle).  No other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition are documented in his record.  

The applicant’s record does document an extensive disciplinary history, which includes his conviction by summary courts-martial on the following three separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  15 July 1971, for breaking restriction; 
16 September 1971, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 August to 
7 September 1971; and 15 November 1971, for being AWOL from 16 October to 27 October 1971 and for breaking restriction.

A separation packet on the applicant, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing is not on file in his military records.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document 
(DD Form 214) on file, which contains the authority and characterization of the applicant’s discharge.  

The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was administratively discharged on 19 January 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It also verifies that he received an UD after completing a total of 1 year, 
11 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service and accruing a total of 111 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge.  The applicant’s case was also reviewed under the provisions of the Department of Defense Review Program (Special) and an upgrade to his discharge was also denied.  
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who are found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  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.  As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his contention that his discharge should be upgraded in order to allow him to receive veterans benefits based on the time he served his country.  However, the Board finds that this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which contains the authority and reason for his separation and that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.  Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.

3.  Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and that it is appropriate based on his extensive disciplinary history.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.

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

__MKP__  __EJA__  __RTD___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066942	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720119	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Discreditable incidents involving civil and military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.