MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          16 April 2002                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002066971

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  No contentions submitted.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military record show.

On 28 August 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B10 (Field Artillery Crewman).  

Between November 1974 and December 1975, the applicant accepted twelve nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for eight occasions of failure to repair, for four occasions of breaking restrictions, for four occasions of being absent without leave from 17 to 18 March 1975, from 30 June to 1 July 1975, from 18 to 19 August 1975 and from 24 to 28 October 1975, for two occasions of dereliction of duty and for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties and a reduction to pay grade E-1. 

The applicant’s record indicated that he was barred from reenlistment.  The applicant’s bar was based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  

On 19 December 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 19 December 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 3 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for misconduct, and provides, in pertinent part, that individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for misconduct.

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 applicant’s discharge proceedings are missing from his file.  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.  

3.   Although the discharge proceedings are missing from his file.  It was determined that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his UD was too severe.

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

__inw___  __mmd___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066971	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020416	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751212	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.