MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200085466

	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. Jeanie M. Biggs		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann		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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged from the Army due to failing to complete alcohol and marriage counseling.  He further states that since his discharge he has been a good citizen and has no police record.

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

On 31 January 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 
19 for a period of three years. He completed basic combat training (BCT) and advanced individual training (AIT).  He was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (field wireman) and the National Defense Medal.  He was assigned to Alaska and advanced to the pay grade of E-2.

On 22 June 1972, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial for stealing $45.00 in US currency.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months (suspended for 30 days) and a forfeiture of $192.00 for 4 months.  

On 18 August 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $67.00 for one month.  He did not appeal the punishment.

He accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ again on 13 July 1973 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $25.00 and restriction to the company area for 14 days.  He did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant accepted NJP for possession of some amount of marijuana on 
10 August 1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction from E-2 to E-1, forfeiture of $150.00 per month for one month, 14 days restriction to company area and 14 days extra duty.  He appealed the NJP on 13 August 1973.  The appeal was denied on 20 August 1973.

On 4 February 1974 the applicant was charged with AWOL from 30-31 January 1974 under Article 15, UMCJ.  He was reduced from E-2 to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $50.00, and extra duty for 7 days (not to exceed 4 hours per day).  He appealed the NJP on 7 February 1974.  The appealed was denied on 
13 February 1974.

On 12 February 1974 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend that he be barred from reenlistment.  The commander’s stated reason for that recommendation was the applicant’s larceny charge, failure to be at his appointed place of duty and possession of marijuana.  The applicant did not submit any matters of rebuttal and when the bar was approved, he did not appeal the bar.

The applicant was given a mental status evaluation on 30 September 1974, which determined that he had no significant mental illness.

On 31 October 1974 the applicant was notified that action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 to discharge him for unsuitability.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights to appear before a board of officers.

In a sworn statement he submitted on his own behalf, the applicant indicated that he was under mental stress and could not perform his duties well.  He further stated, in effect, that he was trying to get medical help when he was charged with AWOL.

On 8 November 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability and directed the applicant receive a General discharge.

On 19 November 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13.  He completed 2 years, 
9 months and 19 days of creditable active service and had 23 days of lost time.  He was issued a General Discharge Certificate. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the 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 a commander 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.

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

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contentions, he was discharged due to repeated acts of misconduct, not for failing to complete counseling.

3.  The fact that the applicant has been a good citizen since his discharge is commendable.  However, his post-service conduct is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge.

4.  The record does not contain any evidence nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to prove an error or injustice.

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

___jlp ___  ___aao__  ____phm_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085466	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030923	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740131	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 66.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.