MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 March 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083902

	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. Luis Almodova		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		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:  In effect, that his Undesirable Discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was only 17 and had his parents sign for him to enter the Army.  He got in with the wrong people in Vietnam and his life became unglued.  He asked for help and it never came.

In addition to his application, the applicant submitted an eight page self-authored letter, summarizing his family's situation and the reasons he entered the Army; events that transpired while he was at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; his reassignment to the Republic of Vietnam; the loss of his girl and the child that he allegedly fathered out of wedlock; his anger at the Army; his involvement with drugs and alcohol; his discharge from the Army; the search for his girl and child in and around Fort Bragg after his discharge; and his having found God and reasons to forgive.

The applicant claims that he was not aware that he could request an upgrade of his discharge until 31 October 2002.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army at age 17, with parental consent, on 30 July 1965.  Following completion of basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was reassigned to undergo advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  On completion of AIT, he was awarded the primary military occupational specialty 11B, Light Weapons Infantryman.  The applicant was then reassigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, to undergo airborne training.  He completed this training on 30 December 1965 and was awarded the Basic Parachutist Badge.  He was further assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo training in the Parachute Pack, Maintenance and Air Delivery Course.

On 2 March 1966, while he was at Fort Lee, the applicant accepted a summarized Article 15, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty, 
C Company, Student Enlisted (Airborne), at 0550 hours on 28 February 1966, and remaining absent until about 0830 on the same date and for failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty, the Maintenance Section, in Building 6240, on 1 March 1966.  The punishment imposed was an oral admonition.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 3 May 1966, the applicant was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for duty as a Parachute Rigger.

On 26 July 1966, while assigned at Fort Bragg, the applicant accepted a summarized NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for absenting himself from his unit about 0515 hours on 26 July 1966 and remaining absent until 0620 hours on the same date.  The punishment imposed was restriction to the company area for 14 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant's DA Form 20, Enlisted Qualification Record, reveals that he was promoted to Private First Class, E-3, on 27 August 1966.

On 15 November 1966, the applicant was arraigned and tried by a Special Court-Martial for absenting himself from his unit, on 31 October 1966, and remaining absent until about 0001 hours, 7 November 1966; for having knowledge of a lawful order given by the Charge of Quarters to report to the Orderly Room and failing to obey the same on 7 November 1966; and for having knowledge of a lawful order to clean up the Orderly Room and failing to obey the same on 
7 November 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, to a forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 3 months and to be reduced to the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1.

The above sentence was adjudged on 15 November 1966 but only so much of the sentence that provided for hard labor without confinement for one month and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for one month was approved.

On 12 June 1967, while assigned at Fort Bragg, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to report for guard duty on 
9 and 11 June 1967.  The punishment imposed was a reduction to the rank and pay grade, Private, E-2, and forfeiture of $19.00.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 27 June 1967, the applicant departed For Bragg enroute to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He arrived in the RVN and was assigned to the 109th Quartermaster Company in Cam Ranh Bay on 27 July 1967.

On 14 August 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for absenting himself from his unit on 9 August 1967 and remaining absent until about 2300 hours on 12 August 1967.  The punishment imposed was a reduction to the rank and pay grade, Private First Class, E-3, forfeiture of $89.00, and extra duty for 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 20 August 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, extra duty, on 19 August 1967.  The punishment imposed was a reduction to the rank and pay grade, Private, E-2, and restriction to the limits of the company area for 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 1 September 1967, the applicant was reassigned to the 147th Field Services Company also at Cam Ranh Bay for rehabilitation purposes.  On 19 September 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for absenting himself without proper authority from bed check on 15 September 1967.  The punishment imposed was a verbal reprimand, forfeiture of $20.00, extra duty for 14 days, 14 days restriction to his place of duty, and confinement to the company area.  The confinement and restriction were to run concurrently.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 10 October 1967, the applicant was reassigned to the 56th Supply Company also located at Cam Ranh Bay for rehabilitation purposes.

On 10 October 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty, Company Bed Check on 8 and 9 October.  The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $34.00, extra duty for 14 days, and restriction to the company area and his place of duty for 
14 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 17 October 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty, filling sandbags at the company ammo bunker on 16 October 1967, and for failing to be at his appointed place of duty, Company Reveille Formation, at 0530 hours, on 17 October 1967.  The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $34.00 and restriction to the company area and his place of duty for 14 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 3 November 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for absenting himself from his unit without proper authority on 
26 October 1967 and remaining absent until about 2000 hours on 30 October 1967.  The punishment imposed was a reduction to Private, E-1, and forfeiture of $68.00 per month for two months.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 3 November 1967, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he [the applicant] be discharged from the Army for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212, Paragraphs 6a(1).  The applicant acknowledged this notification and waived consideration and appearance before 

a board of officers on 5 November 1967.  He chose not to make a statement in his own behalf.  His acknowledgement also included his understanding that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.  The applicant further understood that as a result of issuance of an undesirable discharge, under other than honorable conditions, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

On 3 November 1967, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The examiner, a psychiatrist, found the applicant to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist cleared the applicant for any administrative and/or judicial actions deemed necessary by command.

On 1 December 1967, the applicant was arraigned and tried by a Special Court-Martial for absenting himself from his unit, on 8 November 1967 and remaining absent until about 2030 hours, 9 November 1967; for having knowledge of a lawful order given by a superior commissioned officer to be in his assigned bunk by 2300 hours daily and failing to obey the same on 2 and 23 November 1967; for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, Kitchen Police on 21 November 1967; for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, Company Reveille Formation on 22 and 24 November 1967; for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, Company Work Formation on 24 November 1967; and having knowledge of a lawful order putting Cam Ranh Bay off limits and failing to obey the same on 
25 November 1967.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $86.00 per month for 6 months.

The above sentence was adjudged on 1 December 1967 and approved on 
5 December 1967.

On 23 December 1967, the applicant's recommendation for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212, Paragraphs 6a(1), was returned without action.  Command was directed to convene a board of officers to consider his discharge for unfitness.

On 14 January 1968, clemency was granted the applicant in that, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for six months was suspended until 31 May 1968 at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the sentence would be remitted without further action.

Before a board of officers could consider the applicant's case, he departed absent without leave from his unit on 16 January 1968 and was dropped from the rolls of the organization on 14 February 1968.

The applicant was returned to military control and to his unit on 16 February 1968.  On his return, he was placed in the stockade to await a hearing and disposition of his case before a board of officers.

The applicant appeared before a board of officers, which was convened on 
21 March 1968 to determine whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.  The board found that he was undesirable for further retention in service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and for an established pattern of shirking.  These included repeated cases of AWOL, missing bed check, failure to report for duty, and one case of possession of marijuana.  Further rehabilitation was not recommended because of his unfitness and undesirability had been demonstrated in several consecutive assignments.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness and that he be issued a DD Form 258A, Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 6 May 1968, the approving authority, a major general approved the board's recommendations and directed that he be discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212, Paragraph 6a(1) and that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD From 258A, be issued.

The applicant was discharged on 14 June 1968 in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and he was provided an undesirable discharge certificate.  At the time of his discharge, he had 2 years, 
3 months, and 11 days creditable active Federal service and 200 days lost due to absence without leave and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge 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 6a(1) 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, defines a general discharge as a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is 

issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization.

The above referenced regulation also 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, 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 applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation.

2.  The applicant's contention that he got in with the wrong people in Vietnam was noted by the Board; however, neither the evidence submitted with the application nor the evidence of record supports it.  By the time the applicant had arrived in Vietnam, he had already established a pattern of misconduct and had received three Articles 15 and a special court-martial.

3.  The applicant provided no evidence that his age or level of maturity impaired his ability to be a good soldier or that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully served their country and successfully completed their military service obligation.

4.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 1 June 1968, under Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness-involvement in frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, and that he was issued an Undesirable Discharge.

5.  The record shows that he accepted NJP on 9 occasions and a received a special court-martial for a series of violations of regulations.  The applicant was transferred for rehabilitation twice before he was recommended for separation.  The applicant’s chain of command attempted to assist the applicant in performing 

and conducting himself according to Army standards and the applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  In view of the numerous instances of misconduct, a UD does not appear to be unduly harsh.

6.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  Through his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an upgrade of his Undesirable Discharge to a General Discharge or to a fully Honorable Discharge.

7.  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 failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

8.  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

__jns___  __mhm___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083902	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030325	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680614	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212, Chapter 6	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.	144.5100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.