MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           05 SEPTEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068922

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he enlisted when he was 17 years old and was promised by his recruiter that he would be able to participate in the Vietnam War, instead he was shipped to Germany and never got the chance to do his part in the war which caused him to receive a general discharge.  He further states that he was unaware of the consequences of the discharge papers he signed.  The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request. 

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

On 26 February 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  A DA Form 3286-3 (Part VI - Regular Army Enlistment Option), authenticated by the applicant’s signature, shows that there were no spoken or written promises made to him in connection with his enlistment.  

The applicant successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 36K (Wireman).  He served in Germany from July 1971 to September 1972.

On 24 January 1972, he accepted nonjudical punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being drunk and disorderly, and for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 30 days) and a forfeiture (suspended for 30 days). 

On 12 June 1972, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for sleeping on post.  His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-2.

On 15 June 1972, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  His commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s apathetic and defective attitude towards the Army and his inability to expend effort constructively.  Without constant supervision, he was unable to complete even the simplest of missions, and his conduct was a hazard to the military mission and the discipline of the company.

On 6 July 1972, a physical examination and mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

On 31 July 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent to separate him for unsuitability.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and his right to legal representation.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event he was issued a general discharge.

On 31 August 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

On 18 September 1972, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 1 year, 6 months and 23 days of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy by a displayed lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

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.  There is no evidence in the available records to substantiate the applicant’s claim that his recruiter promised him he would be able to participate in the Vietnam War, or that his assignment to Germany and not Vietnam was the cause of him receiving a general discharge.  

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time of his enlistment is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.

3.  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.

4.  The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a general discharge.  

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

__CLA __  __MHM__  __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068922	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002068922	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.