MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999033174

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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:  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he felt that he could not remain in the military after his father passed away.  His mother was ill with cancer and had several small children to support and he was the only one old enough to work.  He submits a letter written by his wife in support of his request which states that his father passed away and that the applicant needed to be at home with his mother to help with his younger siblings.

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

On 3 January 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.  He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for basic training.  
On 19 March 1966, he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  He was returned to military control at Fort Riley, Kansas and he was placed in pretrial confinement.

On 12 July 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) at Fort Riley, of being AWOL from 19 March-7 May 1966 and from 18 May-
13 June 1966.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended) and forfeiture of $58.00 pay per month for 6 months. 

On 25 July 1966, he departed Fort Riley AWOL and he remained AWOL until he voluntarily returned to military control and was again placed in military confinement on 9 August 1966.  On 29 August 1966, the suspended portion of the sentence to confinement by his SPCM on 12 July 1966 was vacated.  The applicant was to be confined in the Post Stockade, Fort Riley, for 6 months.  

On 3 November 1966, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 25 July-9 August 1966.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $64.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 11 January 1967, while in confinement, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was found to have no mental disease or defect sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels, and he was not motivated for further military service.  During the evaluation, the applicant stated that he enlisted in the Army to escape being prosecuted for a traffic violation (hit and run).  Additionally, he stated that he had been told that he could possibly get a hardship discharge because his father had passed away on 30 November 1966, and his mother needed him at home to help with his seven siblings.  He stated that he preferred to have a dishonorable discharge rather than an honorable discharge because he did not want to come back into the Army if his situation changed.  He stated that he went AWOL for one reason “to get a dishonorable discharge.”

On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  

On 19 January 1967, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He also stated that he under-stood the consequences of receiving a UD.  He waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 19 January 1967, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, because of unfitness due to involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

On 30 January 1967, competent authority waived the requirement for further counseling and rehabilitation, approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  

On 24 February 1967, the remaining portion of his sentence to confinement was remitted.  The applicant was released from confinement.  The very same day he was discharged.  He had completed 3 months and 3 days of active military service and he had a total of 317 days lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.  He never completed his advanced individual training nor was he awarded a military occupational specialty.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided, in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished a UD, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable 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.  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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

4.  His conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

6.	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

__sk____  __jea____  __reb ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033174	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000808	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670224	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A78.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7800	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.