MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066974

	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. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his father’s death and mother’s illness impaired his ability to serve in the Army.  He further states that an upgrade of his discharge would give him peace of mind and would show his kids that he served honorably in the Army.

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

On 26 April 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-2.  

However, the record does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following four separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  30 October 1973, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty without proper authority; 25 February 1974, for four specifications of absenting himself from his appointed place of duty without proper authority; 31 May 1974, for three specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty; and 12 June 1974, for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 24 June 1974, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability.  The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s lack of appropriate interest, defective attitude, and inability to expend efforts constructively.  The applicant consulted counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 2 August 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a GD.  On 26 August 1974, he was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 1 day of active military service and he had accrued 39 days of time lost.  

Army Regulation 635-200, 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.  Individuals separated by reason of unsuitability were furnished an honorable or general discharge as warranted by the military record.

The evidence of record confirms that the applicant submitted an Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 293, to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  Because his application was not submitted within the ADRB’s 15-year statute of limitations, it was referred to this Board for consideration.

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 the applicant’s contention that his father’s death and his mother’s medical problems impaired his ability to serve.  However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time and the Board concludes that it accurately reflects his overall record of service.  

3.  Notwithstanding the personal issues involved, the Board finds the applicant’s extensive disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, it concludes that an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted at this time. 

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

__JHL__  __WTM__  __RWA___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066974	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740826	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	66.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.