MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             1 March 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999029989

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went AWOL after returning from Vietnam because he was having some adjustment problems that are presently called post traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) but were unknown at the time.  He further states that at the time he just felt that he had to get away and that he had good service up until that time.  He also states that his failure to timely file should be forgiven because he was unaware that he could apply to this Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

He enlisted in Knoxville, Tennessee on 22 November 1965 for a period of 3 years and assignment to the San Francisco, California area.  He completed his basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Fort Cronkhite, California on 12 February 1966 for training and duty as a Hercules fire control operator.

On 13 June 1966 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being AWOL from 9 May to 1 June 1966.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 14 July 1966 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 3 July to 6 July 1966, failure to go to his place of duty and breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant received orders transferring him to Alaska with a report date to the replacement detachment at Fort Lewis, Washington of 30 August 1967.  He failed to report as ordered and remained AWOL until 7 September 1967.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 20 September 1967 for the AWOL offense and his punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 6 May 1968 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 17 November 1967 to 2 April 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination on 27 May 1968 and was determined to be mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board or other legal proceedings.  The examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant was not amenable to further punishment, training or rehabilitation and recommended that he be separated from the service.

On 12 July 1968 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  

The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation for separation on 15 July 1968 and cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary and AWOL record, his demonstrated habits and traits of character manifested by repeated shirking, his unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings, and his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant indicated that he understood the substantial prejudice that he might encounter in civilian life with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and the effects it would have on his benefits.  He waived consideration of his case before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 26 July 1968 and directed that he be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 1 August 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had served 1 year, 11 months, and 19 days of total active service and had 354 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge and his request was denied.  He again applied to the ADRB in 1978 and after a personal appearance before that board with counsel, the ADRB again denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

He again applied to the ADRB in 1981 and was referred to this Board.  He applied to this Board in August 1981 stating that he had not been properly counseled on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and the Board administratively denied his request at that time based on his failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members who demonstrated habits and traits of character manifested by repeated shirking or who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant never served in Vietnam or any other hostile fire zone during his service and that the only overseas service he had was in Alaska.

4.  The Board finds that given his disciplinary record, his extensive amount of lost time, and his otherwise undistinguished record of service, the applicant’s record of service is appropriately characterized and an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted. 

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:

__gdp___  __mmd__  ___js____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029989	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/08/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	595	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.5400	595/A54.00/UNFIT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.