MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:          26 June 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003083967

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster 		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 general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He served dutifully.  He would like to get his life together now.

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

He was inducted on 19 June 1969 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of cook.

He served in Vietnam from 19 October 1970 to 15 July 1971.

While on active duty, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on eight occasions.  His offenses consisted of striking a superior noncommissioned officer in the head with his fist; abandoning his guard post; four incidences of being absent without leave (AWOL); and two incidences of failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

On 12 March 1971, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged due to unfitness with an undesirable discharge.  The applicant’s commander provided him the rights he had in conjunction with that recommendation.

On 14 March 1971, the applicant requested a personal appearance before a board of officers.

On 11 May 1971, the applicant waived all of his rights, including the board of officers.

The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 3 June 1971.  He had 1 year, 10 months and 12 days of creditable service, and 33 days of lost time.

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.

On 24 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Eight NJP’s is more than sufficient grounds to warrant separating a soldier for unfitness and issuing him an undesirable discharge.

2.  With a record of eight NJP’s, it cannot be said that the applicant served dutifully.

3.  While it is commendable that the applicant wants to get his life back together, this is not sufficient grounds, in and of itself, to warrant upgrading a properly issued undesirable discharge.

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

___lf____  __wtm ___  ____le____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083967	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030626	
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.	A50.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.