MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            06 NOVEMBER 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088796

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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:  In effect, that he was drafted and was angry.  He also states that he was young and had trouble with authority.  He states that he did not realize that his discharge would "haunt [him] in his later years" and that it has "been a stigma for [him] all these years."  He states that he has been a loyal citizen since his discharge and loves his country.  He maintains that it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade his discharge.  Beyond his self-authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He was inducted on 11 May 1971 at the age of 19.  He successfully completed basic combat training and received an excellent conduct and efficiency rating.  

In September 1971 he was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to undergo training as a field artilleryman.  He was advanced to pay grade E-2 shortly after his arrival at Fort Sill and was awarded a field artillery specialty in November 1971.

In December 1971 the applicant commenced a series of AWOL (absent without leave) periods, which resulted in his being dropped from the rolls of the Army, conviction by a special court-martial, and punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In June 1972, shortly after his release from confinement, which was part of the sentence resulting from his special court-martial action, the applicant again departed AWOL and was ultimately dropped from the rolls of the Army.

He returned to military control on 23 August 1972.  

On 29 August 1972 the applicant's commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander sited the applicant's more than 200 days of lost time and his negative attitude as the basis for the recommendation.  He recommended the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action, consulted with counsel, and waived his attendant rights.  In his acknowledgement statement he indicated that he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the 

basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unfitness.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of an undesirable discharge. 

The commander's recommendation was approved on 15 September 1972 and on 16 September 1972 the applicant again departed AWOL.  His discharged was executed in absentia on 21 September 1971.  The applicant was discharged "under conditions other than honorable" and was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  He had 8 months and 20 days of creditable service and more than 230 days of lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided for the separation for unfitness as a result of a variety of situations, including frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge 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 has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.  His contention that his age, problem with authority, and anger at being inducted somehow justified or excused his behavior is without foundation.  His successful completion of training and promotion to pay grade E-2, clearly indicated that the applicant was capable of honorable service.

2.  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.

3.  He has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity.

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

__SK ___  __RJW__  __MMB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088796	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20031106	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.