MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            1 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014824

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was unaware that he could remain in the service as an only son and that at the time he was afraid of going to Vietnam and being killed.  He was also concerned with who would carry on his name and states that he had only a 6th grade education and that he is an American Indian.  He further states that had he known that he could have remained in the service he would have stayed in and adjusted to military life.  In support of his application he submits five letters of support. 

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

The applicant enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 7 December 1967 for a period of 3 years and training in the clerical field.  He was almost 20 years of age at the time of his enlistment and his records indicate that he was “Caucasian”, that he was born in Connecticut, and that he had completed the 9th grade.

He was transferred to Fort Ord, California to undergo his training and while in basic training went AWOL from 1 March 1968 to 22 April 1968. 

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 May 1968 for the aforementioned AWOL offenses and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

He again went AWOL on 23 July 1968 and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 4 December 1968.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 December 1968 of the aforementioned AWOL offenses and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

On 3 April 1969 he was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky where he underwent and completed advanced individual training as an armor crewman.  He was then transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado on 3 June 1969 and again went AWOL on 20 June 1969.  He remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Ord on 27 June 1970.

The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 October 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct based on prolonged absences for more than 1 year (Desertion).  He had served 10 months and 21 days of total active service and had 733 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
A review of the supporting statements indicate, in effect, that the applicant is a recovering alcoholic who has begun to rejoin society as a productive member.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 44 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that enlisted members in an AWOL or desertion status for 1 year or more could be processed for separation if approved by the general 
court-martial convening authority.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention’s and supporting statements have been noted by the Board.  While the Board applauds his recovery from alcohol and the support he is receiving, his contentions and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  There is no indication in the available records to show that alcohol contributed to his problem at the time or that he was a sole surviving son.  Therefore, the Board finds that the offenses for which he was convicted are too serious and his brief record of service is too undistinguished to warrant relief.

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

___jhl ___  __fkm___  ___sk___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014824	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/10/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  651	144.6300/A63.00/DESERTION	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.