MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           30 April 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002067180

	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	
	Me. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaugnessy, Jr.		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions or honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was young and foolish, but nothing in his conduct would warrant such a discharge.  He indicates that he did not receive a General Court Martial for this discharge.  Further, he indicates that his conduct was foolish, but not criminal.  He did not run to Canada, but showed up and went to Vietnam.  He was never a danger to anyone.  He was unaware that a discharge was possible until a friend, a Purple Heart recipient and disabled vet, recommended that he apply to this Board.

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

On 6 January 1969, at the age of 17 years, 9 months and 5 days, he enlisted in the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Specialist).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3, effective 27 March 1969.

During the period 29 July 1969 to15 April 1970, he was assigned to a unit in Vietnam.

On 2 October 1969, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for his failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $25.

On 25 November 1969, he received NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 2 days.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $45 and extra duty for 30 days.

On 28 November 1969,medical records show he was admitted to a medical facility for acute cellulites, both arms, secondary to admitted self injection of a solution of red tabs (downers).  He was treated and released to his detachment commander. 

On 21 February 1970, he received NJP for his failure to sign into his unit and for disobeying a lawful command from his commander.  His punishment is not shown in the available records.

On 4 March 1970, he received NJP for his failure to report for duty and being AWOL.  His punishment is not shown in the available records.

On 12 March 1970, he received NJP for his failure to report for duty and being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment is not shown in the available records.
On 13 March 1970, he received NJP for being AWOL from his place of duty.  His punishment is not shown in the available records.

On 16 March 1970, the unit commander requested the applicant be barred from reenlistment in the service.  He cited 6 NJP’s and formal counseling on numerous occasions.  Documentation shows the applicant was being processed for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

On 13 April 1970, a DA Form 137(Installation Clearance Record) shows that the authority for his departure and separation was Army Regulation 635-212.

On 17 April 1970, he was discharged with a UD under the above cited regulation.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he had 1 year, 3 months and 8 days of creditable service.

On 5 April 1973, the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, in an attempt to obtain records of the applicant, advised the National Personnel Records Center that the applicant had pled guilty, on 22 March 1973, to possession of Cannabis. 

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. That regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. When separation for unfitness was warranted, 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 applicant’s service did not then meet and does not now meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200.  Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable or general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention of being young and foolish.  Although the applicant entered active duty prior to his 18th birthday, he was well over that age when his misconduct began.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant’s post service has been less than stellar.

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

_aao____  _hof___  __teo___     DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067180	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020430	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.