MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029993

	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. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wager		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able 		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant states, in effect, that he desires an upgrade because of his physical health.

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

On 24 February 1966 he was inducted into the Army of the U.S. for a period of 2 years.  The applicant reported to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for basic combat training.  

On 17 April 1966 the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) and, on 
19 April 1966, while in AWOL status, was confined by civilian authorities for assault and interfering with a police officer.  He was released from civilian confinement on 18 May 1966.

On 17 June 1966 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of  AWOL for the period of time he was in civilian confinement.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $58 and restriction for 30 days.

On 22 June 1966 the applicant was returned to duty in order to complete basic combat training.  On 25 August 1966 he was assigned to the U.S. Army Natick Labs, Natick, Massachusetts, in military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).

On 19 September 1966 the applicant departed AWOL and remained so absent until 1 December 1966.  He was returned to duty at Fort Carson, Colorado.

On 15 December 1966 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months and a forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 6 months.  On 13 January 1967 the unexecuted portion of the sentence of CHL was suspended.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) reflects an assignment to Vietnam on 25 January 1967, however, the applicant never reported to the overseas replacement company and again departed AWOL.

On 21 October 1967 he was returned to duty at Fort Carson, Colorado, and confined at the post stockade.  

On 15 November 1967 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM for AWOL.  He was sentenced to CHL for 6 months and a forfeiture of $20 pay per month for
6 months.  He was subsequently confined to the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  

On 19 March 1968 an order was published remitting the unexecuted portion of the applicant’s confinement and on 20 March 1968 he departed Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in casual status en route to Germany. 

On 3 June 1968 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL (1-3 June 1968).  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $15 and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 9 June 1968 the applicant was involved in an altercation with German nationals and he was struck in the eye with a wrench and subsequently lost the use of the eye.  On 13 September 1968, he was returned from Europe to Valley Forge Hospital, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, for continued treatment of his eye injury.  The line of duty investigation in the record is illegible. 

On 23 September 1968 the applicant departed AWOL from the hospital and remained so absent until 3 November 1968.  He was returned to duty at the Special Processing Company, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

On 14 January 1969 his commanding officer initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.   

On 15 January 1969 the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 258A. Accordingly, he was discharged on 24 January 1969 after completing 1 year, 
3 months, and 2 days of active military service. 

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.
A UD was normally considered appropriate.

On 16 October 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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

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 failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

3.  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

__rjw____  ____js__  ___ra____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029993	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19619690124	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.7100.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9231.0000	
2. 	144.9301.0000	
3. 	144.0100.0000	
4. 		
5.		
6.