MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          23 October 2003     
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087439

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served three years honorably but after reenlisting as a young man he began drinking and mixed with the wrong class of people.  He contends that his heavy drinking led to his decision to go absent without leave (AWOL).  The applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his application. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 12 March 1962 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a truck vehicle mechanic.

On 4 August 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL for 27 minutes on 2 August 1964.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 25 November 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 24 November 1964 to 25 November 1964 
(40 minutes).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 30 days), extra duty, and restriction.

On 10 February 1965, the applicant was honorably discharged on 10 February 1965 for immediate reenlistment.  On 11 February 1965, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years.    

On 29 September 1965, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 22 September 1965 to 24 September 1965.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay, and restriction.

On 10 January 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL for 2 hours on 1 January 1966.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months) and a forfeiture of pay.

On 24 February 1966, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant.

On 21 March 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 14 March 1966 to 15 March 1966 and violating a lawful general regulation (operating a privately owned vehicle without a valid drivers license).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction.

On 20 April 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 29 March 1966 to 6 April 1966.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months, to forfeit $80 pay per month for 6 months and to be reduced to E-1.  On 22 April 1966, the convening authority approved the sentence.

On 11 May 1966, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was cleared for administrative separation.  The applicant was diagnosed with immature personality.  Section III (Pertinent History) of this evaluation states, in pertinent part, that "I would get tired of being around the people and would leave."    

On 6 June 1966, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement was suspended for 6 months.  On 11 July 1966, the suspended portion of the applicant's sentence to confinement was vacated.

On 14 June 1966, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found to be qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  

On 7 July 1966, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. 

On 9 July 1966, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness and recommended separation with an undesirable discharge.

The intermediate commanders concurred with the recommendation for separation.

On 2 August 1966, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He also directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge.   

On 30 August 1966, the unexecuted portion of the applicant's sentence pertaining to forfeitures was remitted.

U.S. Army Personnel Center Fort Dix Special Orders Number 253, dated 
10 September 1966, show the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 12 September 1966 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 4 years, 3 months, and 9 days of total active service with 84 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. 
    
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time the applicant's separation action was initiated, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Section II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

Army Regulation 635-212 superseded Army Regulation 635-208 effective 15 July 1966 and was in effect at the time the applicant was separated.   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 is the current regulation governing the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is 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 the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 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.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was young at the time of his reenlistment is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years old at the time of his reenlistment.

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that heavy drinking led to his decision to go AWOL.  However, there is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant reported to the psychiatrist on 11 May 1966 that he "would get tired of being around the people and would leave."

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service during his second enlistment which included a bar to reenlistment, three nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction and 84 days lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The Board also determined that his record of service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

5.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.  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

JL_____  MKP_____  AAO_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087439	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031023	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19660912	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.