MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             16 December 1999              
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999030413

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that there was poor management of men and materials, no clear objective and a lot of racial discrimination.

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

The applicant was inducted on 8 July 1968 and served as a supply specialist.

In February 1969, the applicant began receiving numerous nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of disobeying a lawful order, AWOL (10 days) and violation of a lawful general regulation.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 27 January 1970 and was 
diagnosed as having a (3201) paranoid personality, chronic, severe, manifested by feelings of persecution, ideas of racial prejudice against him, continuous infractions of rules, difficulty with officers and NCO’s, fighting with peers.  He further indicated that the applicant would not adjust to further military service and that further rehabilitative efforts probably would be non-productive.  The psychiatrist determined that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed the mental capacity to participate in board proceedings
This evaluation also indicated this condition existed prior to his entry into the service.

On 27 January 1970, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s paranoid personality, chronic, severe, manifested by feelings of persecution, continuous infractions of rules, and difficulty with authority.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a personal appearance before a board of officer.  He also waived representation by counsel and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 27 January 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 28 January 1970.  He had a total of 1 year, 
6 months and 20 days of creditable service and 10 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 April 1977.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 31 August 1977.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  In stated, in pertinent part, that individuals would be separated for unsuitability due to aptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, alcoholism, or enuresis and that the individual would be furnished an honorable or general discharge.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that there was poor management of men and materials, no clear objective and a lot of racial discrimination.  
However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.  The Board also notes that the applicant waived his rights to a personal appearance before a board of officers, waived representation by counsel and was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf during the process, but declined to do so.

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

3.  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.

4.  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

FKM____  RVO____  SK______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030413	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700128	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.