MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999030427

	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:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge be changed to honorable.

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

The applicant was inducted in the Army on 23 June 1969.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and served as an armor supply specialist.  He was promoted to E-4 and awarded the National Defense Service Medal.

During the period November 1970 through March 1971, the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. 

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on two separate occasions for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and failing to obey a lawful order issued by the commanding officer.  In each case, he was sentenced to reduction and forfeiture, and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended for 30 days).

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that he was discharged on 7 May 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, chapter 6, for unsuitability – apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively and was issued a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He had 1 year, 9 months and 14 days of creditable service with 31 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

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 evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his general under honorable conditions discharge was too severe.

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

AAO____  CLG_____  MW_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030427	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710507	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212, chapter 6	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability – apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.