MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 July 2003               
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088347

	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:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, at the time of his discharge he was young and immature and as was the case with the country, his life was in turmoil.  He claims that his service helped him to realize many things that have helped him in life since his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits the enclosed personal statement, two letters of support attesting to his excellent character, a certificate of completion of a computer application course, a certificate of baptism, a birth certificate, a copy of general education development (GED) test results, and a criminal records check.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show

On 14 September 1967, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Lights Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-1.

The applicant’s record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure.  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history.  On 4 December 1967, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit, and he remained away for until 13 December 1967.

On 15 December 1967, the applicant again departed AWOL from unit, and he remained away until 2 January 1968.  On 4 January 1968, he once again went AWOL, and remained away until 31 May 1968. 

On 23 February 1968, the applicant was found guilty of three specifications of AWOL by a special court-martial.  The resultant sentence included six months hard labor and a forfeiture of $63.00 per month for six months. 

On 16 March 1968, the applicant’s unit commander informed him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of paragraph 6a, 
Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  In his recommendation, the unit commander indicated after the applicant’s return from his first AWOL period, he was offered nonjudicial punishment (NJP), in the hopes that he could be rehabilitated.  The unit commander further stated that during the short periods the applicant was present for duty, he evinced an attitude of purely indifference, and stated his desire to separate from the military. 

On 10 April 1968, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed his election of rights.  In his election of rights he waived the right to counsel.  He also waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, and his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers.  Finally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 24 May 1968, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive an UD.  On 31 May 1968, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 months and 20 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 
178 days of time lost due to AWOL. 

The record provides no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. 

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was young, immature, and his life was in turmoil at the time of his discharge.  However, given his short and undistinguished record of service, it finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The Board also notes that the applicant was notified of the contemplated separation action by his unit commander, consulted legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of its possible effects.  In addition, subsequent to this counseling, he elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers.

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time. 

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

RKS__  __JM___  __JHL    __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088347	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/05/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.