MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            23 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029980

	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.

	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  
In support of his application, he submits copies of two DD Forms 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a personal statement.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 19 April 1968 for a period of three years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and served in Hawaii as a carpenter.  On 28 December 1968, the applicant reenlisted while in temporary duty (TDY) status in Thailand.  He left Thailand on reenlistment leave to the United States and went AWOL on 29 January 1969 for a total of 37 days. 

On 14 May 1969, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a lawful general regulation by having three bald tires on his privately owned vehicle (POV). 

The applicant’s personnel records also show that he was AWOL on 24 May 1969 while stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky for a total of 13 days.  During the period June 1969 to November 1969, the applicant was confined by military authorities on two separate occasions for a total of 125 days.  He was pending charges for the following offenses:  uttering worthless checks; larceny of private property (auto); not having a state or post registration; driving an unsafe vehicle; impersonating a noncommissioned officer by publicly wearing the uniform and insignia of rank of specialist five (SP5); falsifying official orders; and disobeying a lawful order of a first sergeant (1SGT).

On 26 September 1969, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which indicated that he had a life long history of emotional immaturity, impulsive behavior, failure to learn from experience, and inability to tolerate anxiety or frustration.  The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 29 November 1969, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service prior to his expiration term of service (ETS) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a(1) for unfitness based on frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The intermediate commander recommended approval of the separation with an undesirable discharge.

Records show that the applicant received another NJP on 12 January 1970 for refusing an order from staff sergeant to go on kitchen patrol (KP) at the mess hall. 

On 29 January 1970, the applicant was discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He had 1 year, 4 months and 13 days of creditable service with 175 days of lost time.

On 28 October 1970, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his UD was too severe.

5.  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.

6.  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

SLP____  RA______  JEA_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029980	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000323 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700129	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212,para 14e	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.