MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070649

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, 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:  In effect, that his discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he got an honorable discharge from his first two years of service.  Then he reenlisted and incurred marital and alcohol problems.  He was in a military police holding cell, drunk, and they said he threatened to kill his commanding officer.  He had no recollection of doing that.  As supporting evidence he provides a 29 May 1997 letter of support from the pastor of the Allen Temple African Methodist Episcopal Church, his Certificate of Ordination, and his Certificate of License to perform ministry functions.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 27 April 1970.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Armorer/Supply Specialist).  He was honorably discharged on 15 July 1971 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 15 July 1971.  On 25 April 1974, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 26 April 1974.  

On 3 December 1974, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for two specifications of indecent exposure and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 to on or about 19 November 1974.

On 19 February 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 30 January to on or about 4 February 1975.  

On 28 February 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

The applicant’s separation packet is not available.

On 2 May 1975, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5A(1) (unfitness, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  He had completed a total of 5 years and 1 day of service.  His Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, for this period reflects only his first 5-day period of AWOL.  

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness when they were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion including but not limited to indecent exposure, drug abuse, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, or homosexual acts and it was established that further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to succeed or they were not amenable to rehabilitation measures.

Army Regulation 635-200 states that character of service will be determined only by the member’s military record of the current period of service.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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 and, 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.

2.  The Board acknowledges that the applicant’s two earlier periods of service had ended with an honorable discharge.  However, the characterization of his last period of service was properly determined using only his record of service during his last enlistment.  Although the available evidence shows a record of only two Article 15s for that last period of service, they encompassed four offenses including two periods of AWOL.  The Board agrees with his command’s determination that his record of service did not meet the standards for either an honorable or a general under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s good post-service conduct; however, that factor does not warrant granting the relief requested.

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

_SK___  ___JTM__  __TEO____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070649	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/05/02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.