MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:           November 20, 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086283

	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. Yvonne J. Foskey .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		Chairperson	
	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).  

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unaware that he could apply to upgrade his discharge.  He claims that he was unjustly given an UD due to extenuating circumstances.  He claims that while he was serving his mother had surgery, for which he was granted emergency leave.  He also claims that his mother ended up bedridden with no one but his elderly grandparents to care for her.  His grandparents were pressuring him to get home so he elected to accept his discharge.  He further states that 9 months and 16 days after he was released from the Army, his mother died.  

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

On 14 February 1967, he was inducted and entered active duty in the Army.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at 
Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook).

The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class and that the only awards and decorations he received were the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  It also verifies that during his tenure on active duty, he accrued 
95 days of lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in military confinement. 

On 6 February 1968, the applicant was found guilty pursuant to his pleas of being AWOL from on or about 29 October 1967 until on or about 11 January 1968, by a special court-martial.  The resultant sentence was a forfeiture of $30.00 per month for five months.

On 14 February 1968, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of misconduct. 

The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects of an UD, he completed his election of rights.  He elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.

On 23 February 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that he receive an UD.  On 1 March 1968, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he completed a total of 9 months and 14 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued a total of 95 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

The record gives no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade to his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statue 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 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.  The applicant’s contention that the reason he went AWOL and accepted the UD was so that he could go home and care for his mother was carefully considered.  However, this factor was not considered sufficiently mitigating to support the requested relief given the applicant’s short and undistinguished record of service. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the law and regulations applicable at the time.  Further, the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The record also shows that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the impact of the UD, he elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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

__JHL_  _LDS___  __RLD        _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086283	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/03/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.