MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            25 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072065

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was unjustly discharged at a young age as a teenager who didn’t know any better and the discharge has affected the outcome of his life.  He further states that it has turned into a life sentence that he would like removed.  He also states that he has no veterans benefits and did not know that he could appeal the discharge.

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

He enlisted with parental consent at Fort Hamilton, New York, on 15 August 1972 for a period of 3 years and training as a field wireman.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo his training.

On 16 November 1972, while attending his advanced individual training (AIT), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 7 days.

He completed his AIT and was transferred to Baumholder, Germany, on 10 January 1973, for duty as a field wireman.  On 29 January 1973, NJP was imposed against him for unlawfully striking another soldier in the head with his fist.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 14 days.

The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 May to 18 May 1973.  However, the record is silent as to any punishment imposed. 

On 13 June 1973, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in deportment towards his first sergeant.  His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand, a forfeiture in pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 7 January 1974, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, extra duty and restriction.

In September 1973, the commander received a letter of indebtedness from the local military banking facility on the installation.  The letter informed the commander that the applicant had opened a checking account on 3 September 1973 with a deposit of $125.00 and by the 19th of September 1973, he had written 13 checks totaling $886.00, with no additional deposits.

The applicant and the commander received a letter from the banking facility on 4 December 1973, indicating that the matter would be pursued for collection through the German Court.

On 26 December 1973, the commander received a letter of indebtedness from a civilian attorney in Germany attempting to collect money from the applicant for funds ($156.26) he had borrowed from an airline to purchase a ticket.

On 23 January 1974, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness, due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, his disciplinary record, his failure to pay his just debts, writing bad checks, failure to accept military authority, and failure to conform to military standards. 

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he understood the implications of an undesirable discharge and the fact that he might be ineligible for benefits.

On 24 January 1974, the commander submitted the recommendation for discharge and indicated that the applicant had been a total failure as a soldier.  He had been a consistent disciplinary problem since his arrival, disciplinary action had no effect on him and he showed a complete disregard for authority.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation on 13 February 1974 and directed that he be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 26 February 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200. chapter 13, for unfitness due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 6 months and 9 days of total active service and had 3 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities.  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 administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights. 

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall undistinguished record of service.

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

__rtd  ___  __kwl ___  __rvo ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072065	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/02/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  592	144.5000/A5100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.