MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            8 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073442

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the reason he received a UD was due to marriage problems with his wife.  His wife made life difficult for him in the military.  He could not function because of the stress and the emotional pain he faced day to day from his wife's abuse.  He also states that one day he decided he needed to work on his marriage because he loved his wife more than life itself.  He walked in and asked for release from the military.  He submits a Veterans Administrative Form 21-4138 (Statement of Support of Claim) in support of his application.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1 on 27 June 1972.

He was advanced to pay grades E-2 on 27 October 1972 and E-3 on 8 November 1973.

He completed basic and advanced training and assigned military occupational specialty 76A10, Supply Clerk.

On 27 June 1973, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), for absence from his unit.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay of 1 month and extra duty for 7 days.

On 9 July 1973, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for absence from his appointed place of duty from 4 July to 6 July 1973.   His punishment included forfeiture of pay of 1 month, perform extra duty for 7 days and reduction to pay grade E-1.  Reduction to pay grade E-1 was suspended for a period of 30 days.

On 16 November 1973, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for absence from his appointed place of duty from 13 November to 14 November 1973.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay for 1 month and extra duty for 20 days.

On 5 February 1974, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for absence from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay for 1 month, restriction to billets, chapel, mess hall, and place of duty for 7 days and reduction to pay grade E-2.  

On the same day, the applicant appealed the Article 15, stating that the fine and reduction were justified, but he did not feel that he should be required to live in the billets because he could not live in the barracks because his wife was sick 

often and he did not have a phone, so he asked that the matter about living in the barracks be dropped.  That portion of his sentence pertaining to restriction to billets, chapel, mess hall and place of duty for a period of 7 days was remitted.

On 5 February 1974, he was also tried by summary court-martial for absence from his unit from 31 January through 4 February 1974.  He was found guilty and sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of $108.00 per month for 1  month.  

He was separated on 3 April 1974, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5b(3) and issued a UD discharge certificate.  He was credited with 1 year, 8 months and 25 days total active service and 12 days lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant's discharge proceedings are not a matter of record.

There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  At that time, paragraph 13-5 b (3) provided for the separation of individuals whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unfitness was warranted a UD 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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  However, the evidence submitted with the application and the evidence of record does not support them. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems during his service are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  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. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

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

_MVT____  __LE___  _RJW___   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073442	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020808	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.