MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF.

		BOARD DATE:             9 October 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003089186

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast . 		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, that he reenlisted for military occupational specialty (MOS) 16B (Hercules Missile Crewman) in the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) branch, but never received training for this MOS.  He claims that he was instead forced to be a driver.  

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

The applicant initially entered active duty on 11 June 1963.  He was trained and served in MOS 13B (Cannoneer) until being honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 6 July 1965.  

On 7 July 1965, the applicant reenlisted for assignment to an ADA unit.  His Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms in Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) that he was awarded MOS 16B (Hercules Missile Crewman) on 18 September 1965, and that he held this MOS until it was withdrawn and he was awarded MOS 64A (Light Vehicle Driver) on 23 June 1969.  

The applicant’s records document no acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following three separate occasions for the offense indicated:  21 May 1964, for failure to obey a lawful order; 16 April 1968, for being absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 10 April 1968 until on or about 13 April 1968; and 2 May 1969, for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  

The applicant’s disciplinary history also includes his 13 October 1965 conviction of being AWOL, for the period from on or about 15 September 1965 to on or about 5 October 1965, by a summary court-martial.  The resultant sentence included a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, confinement at hard labor for 30 days, and a forfeiture of $80.00. 

On 14 April 1969, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that action was being initiated to separate him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  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 June 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed that he receive an UD.  On 16 July 1969, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 5 years, 11 months, and 15 days of creditable active military service.

On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and determined that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade to his discharge.

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 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he reenlisted for an ADA MOS, but was forced to serve as a driver.  However, the record shows that in connection with his reenlistment, the applicant was awarded MOS 16B on 
18 September 1965 and served in that MOS until being reclassified into MOS 64A on 23 June 1969.  

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

3.  The Board takes special note of the fact that once properly notified of the contemplated separation action against him, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of its possible effects, he waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers.  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.  Thus, it 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

_ECP___  ___RO__  __RJO__    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.