MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033741

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy 		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 General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a good soldier with a clean record.  He provides no supporting documentation with his application.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 13 October 1971.  Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 71B, Clerk Typist, and transferred to Hawaii.

On 18 September 1972, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him for unsuitability.  The action was based upon at least 16 formal counselings for poor duty performance, and numerous professional development counselings wherein his chain of command attempted to improve the applicant's attitude and duty performance.

The applicant acknowledged notification and stated that he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life should he be issued a GD.  He waived all rights and elected not to provide a statement in his own behalf.  He was medically cleared for separation and any further rehabilitative efforts were waived.

On 13 October 1972, the approving authority approved the applicant's separation for unsuitability and directed that he be issued a GD.  He was separated on 26 October 1972 with a GD.  He had 1 year and 14 days of creditable service and no lost time.

The applicant did not petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.

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 an undesirable discharge, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable discharge.  Service members discharged for unsuitability 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.  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 unsuitability, as manifested by a defective attitude, inability to expend effort constructively, and indifference toward treatment or rehabilitative efforts, is well documented in the record.  His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

__dsj____  __kak___  __ewl ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033741	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721026	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.