MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030620

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the character of his discharge is a result of being young and irresponsible at the time and that he is much older and wiser and would like to have his discharge upgraded for VA purposes.

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

The applicant enlisted in Dallas, Texas at the age of 18 on 31 August 1971 for a period of 2 years.  He completed his training at Fort Ord, California and was transferred to Germany on 26 February 1972 for duty as a cook.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 10 April 1972.

On 6 October 1972 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.  

On 18 October 1972 NJP was imposed against him for three specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. 

The applicant went AWOL from 7 December 1972 to 22 January 1973 and NJP was imposed against him on 5 February 1973.  His punishment consisted a forfeiture of pay.

He went AWOL on 9 March 1973 and remained absent until 13 March 1973.  He again went AWOL on 15 March 1973 and was arrested by civil authorities in Las Cruces, New Mexico on 28 March 1973 for larceny.  He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, $110.00 in fines plus court costs, and was released to the El Paso, Texas Sheriff’s Department on 19 April 1973 for auto theft.  He was released on bond on 12 May 1973. 

He was convicted by a special court-martial at Fort Bliss, Texas on 15 June 1973 of being AWOL from 15 March to 12 May 1973.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and a forfeiture of pay

ON 11 July 1973 NJP was imposed against him for four specifications of failure to go to his place of duty and for being disrespectful in language towards a senior NCO.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay. 

He again had NJP imposed against him on 25 August 1973 for being derelict in his duties.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.

On 31 August 1973 NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 24 September 1973 NJP was imposed against him for six specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, an oral reprimand, and restriction.

The applicant’s commander, on 4 October 1973, advised him that he (the commander) was initiating a recommendation for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to at least 16 counseling sessions. 

After consulting with counsel the applicant waived his right to have his case considered by 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 23 October 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 November 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He had served 1 year, 9 months, and 20 days of total active service and had 132 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 15 February 1979 for an upgrade of his discharge.  He contended at that time that he did not finish school because of his mother’s illness and that he joined the Army to finish school; however, because of his military occupational specialty, he was unable to do so.  He also contended that his commander in Germany suggested that he go AWOL to be closer to his girlfriend by being transferred to the United States.  He also contended that his time in civil confinement was the result of his having an accident with a friend’s car and contends that his post-service conduct has been honorable.  The ADRB unanimously voted to deny his request on 18 March 1981.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  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 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

4.  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.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rvo __  ___eja___  ___ewl__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030620	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/11/02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	592	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.5100	592/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.