MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF 

	BOARD DATE:  15 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033847

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Orville W. Troesch		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served in Vietnam.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 14 November 1968.  He completed training as a vehicle mechanic and was assigned to Germany.  He was promoted to grade E-3 effective 1 July 1969.  He reenlisted for assignment to Vietnam on 14 July 1969 and received an honorable discharge for his prior 8 months service.

The applicant was assigned to Vietnam on 10 October 1969.  On 21 November 1969 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from his place of duty and reduced to grade E-2.  He was convicted by special court-martial on 6 December 1969 of sleeping on guard duty in a combat zone and leaving his guard post in a combat zone without authority.  The approved sentence included reduction to E-1 and confinement.

On 25 February 1970 he was convicted by summary court-martial of leaving his guard post in a combat zone without authority.  The approved sentence included a fine and confinement.

Although the supporting documentation is no longer in the available record, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 14 June 1970 after serving 8 months in Vietnam.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) shows that he was separated under the authority of AR 635-212 with 1 year, 7 months, and 1 day creditable service and 38 days lost time.  His separation code was 28B.

AR 635-5-1, in effect at the time, states that separation code 28B was used when the basis for separation was unfitness, frequent involvement in incidences of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.

AR 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within the 15 year time limit.

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

2.  His contention that his service in Vietnam merits an honorable discharge lacks credibility.  His entire record of indiscipline involves his less than meritorious service while serving in Vietnam.

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

__OT___  ___MT___  ___KN___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033847	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000615	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700614	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.