MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067835

	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	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable because he wants to receive health benefits and other benefits as needed.  The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant was inducted in the Army on 14 June 1966.  He completed basic training at Fort Ord, California, and was assigned to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, for advanced individual training (AIT).

While in AIT, the applicant received three nonjudicial punishments for being derelict in the performance of his duties; failing to go to his appointed place of duty; and for being AWOL from 3 October 1966 to 16 October 1966.  Upon completion of AIT, the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.  Before arriving in Vietnam, he received nonjudicial punishment for being AWOL from 31 December 1966 to 5 January 1967.  

On 10 March 1967 and 12 March 1967, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being disrespectful in deportment and for being disrespectful in language toward a sergeant.

On 1 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 30 June 1967 to 3 July 1967.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 1 month (suspended for 1 month), to forfeit $65.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to private E-1.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment again on 24 August 1967 for being disrespectful in language toward a sergeant.

On 9 September 1967, the applicant was advised by counsel of the proposed separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-212, for unfitness.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and did not submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an undesirable discharge were issued to him.

On 19 September 1967, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of disobeying a lawful order from a specialist five.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $25.00 pay for 1 month.

The separation authority approved the separation action and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 11 October 1967 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 14e, for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had 1 year, 3 months and 5 days of creditable service and 23 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 14e 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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 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.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  Records show the applicant received seven nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial, and one summary court-martial.  

4.  The applicant’s service does not meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200.  Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s 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.

5.  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.

6.  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

SAC_____  KWL_____  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067835	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020407	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19671011	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness-frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.