MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030409

	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	
	Mr. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time he received his discharge he was very young.  He was in the Army for 8 years; has now been out for 31 years, and is a different person.  He is getting ready to retire from his job of 30 years.

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

He enlisted on 31 December 1960 and, after training, was assigned overseas to Europe (both France and Germany).

While in Europe, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) three times under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 3 October 1963 for missing bedcheck; on 31 December 1963 for being relieved from duty due to indulgence in alcoholic beverages; and on 29 February 1964 for 1 day AWOL.

After completing his tour in Europe, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  On 7 July 1964 he was administered NJP for 1 day AWOL.

On 25 November 1964, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 1 October 1964 to 2 November 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $70.00 per month for 6 months.  On 27 January 1965, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended for 4 months.

Subsequent to the aforementioned court-martial action, the applicant received NJP three more times while stationed at Fort Hood:  on 5 August 1965 for being absent from his place of duty without proper authority and failure to obey a lawful order; on 8 December 1965 for failure to sign in from leave of absence; and on 29 December 1965 for two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order and failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 14 February 1966, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 23 January to 2 February 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $20.00 per month for 
6 months, and reduction in grade to private (E-1).  On 18 March 1966, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement and forfeiture of pay was suspended for 6 months.

In November 1966, the applicant was reassigned to Vietnam.  While serving in Vietnam, he was twice administered NJP:  on 21 June 1967 for AWOL from 19 June to 21 June 1967; and on 27 June 1967 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

Upon completion of his tour in Vietnam, the applicant was again reassigned to Fort Hood.  On 5 January 1968, he was administered NJP for AWOL from
2 January to 3 January 1968.

On 15 March 1968, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 1 February 1968 to 7 March 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months), forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months, and reduction in grade to private (E-1).

On 23 April 1968, he received NJP for two specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 18 July 1968, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 11 May 1968 to 18 May 1968, and from 20 May 1968 to 10 July 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months), and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months.

On 25 September 1968, he was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 10 August 1968 to 18 September 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $70.00 per month for 
6 months.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that he was discharged on 25 October 1968 for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant had 6 years, 10 months and 29 days of creditable service and 320 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 facts and circumstances, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.  It would appear that the administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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 has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned 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

__mkp__  __gdp____  __tbr____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030409	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000510	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681025	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.