MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF         

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029725

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  That at the time of his service he was experiencing marital problems and while in Vietnam he lost his son due to crib death; which drove him to drinking heavily.  He goes on to state that upon returning from Vietnam he tried unsuccessfully to find his children and got into trouble.  He further states that he was there for his country when he was needed and that he now needs his country because he is in bad health and needs his VA Benefits because he requires medication that he cannot afford.  He also states that he had been punished for 30 years and he believes that it is enough.

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

The applicant initially enlisted in the Oklahoma Army National Guard and was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 December 1963 due to being AWOL from 6 months of active duty for training. 

He then enlisted in the Regular Army in Kansas City, Missouri on 20 September 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He was 21 years of age at the time of enlistment and indicated that he was married with no dependent children.

He successfully completed his training and received orders transferring him to Korea for duty as a light vehicle driver.  However, the applicant failed to report as ordered and remained AWOL from 13 April 1968 until he was returned to military control at Fort Sill, Oklahoma on 15 June 1968.  He then went AWOL again on 1 July and remained absent until 10 July 1968. 

He was convicted by a special court-martial of the aforementioned AWOL offenses on 19 July 1968 and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.

On 9 August 1968 the convening authority suspended that portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for a period of 3 months, unless sooner vacated.

The applicant was transferred to Vietnam on 15 October 1968 and was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 24 February 1969.  He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 28 August 1969 of being AWOL from 22 July to 6 August 1969.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay (suspended), and restriction.   Although not explained in the available records, the suspended portion of his sentence to be reduced to the pay grade of E-2 was vacated on 13 October 1969.

He departed Vietnam on 23 October 1969 en route to Fort Sill, Oklahoma and failed to report as ordered.  He remained AWOL from 5 December 1969 until he was returned to military control on 27 January 1970.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 14 February 1970 of being AWOL from 5 December 1969 to 26 January 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a forfeiture of pay.

His records also show that he was confined by civil authorities on 9 January 1970 for a period of 15 days on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

He again went AWOL from 1 March to 1 May 1970, was in confinement from 2 May to 3 June 1970.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 4 June 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 10 months, and 11 days of total active service and had 304 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  His records indicate that he was divorced at the time of his discharge and that he had no dependent children.  It should also be noted that his records show that he acknowledged receipt of the administrative board proceedings pertaining to his administrative discharge. 
 
There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness for those individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant’s rights.  

2.  Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and are not supported by the evidence of record.  The applicant began a pattern of misconduct before ever departing from Vietnam and continued after his return.  Therefore, his contentions are not sufficient to mitigate relief when compared to his extensive absences over a short period of time and his overall undistinguished record of service.

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 the aforementioned 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

__mvt___  ___ewl__  ___ew___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029725	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/06/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	583/UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583 	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.