MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:    25 February 1999                          
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999017816

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon 		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 a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  He made no contentions.

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

On 17 October 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years and training in military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

Both his conduct and efficiency rating was excellent from 13 November through 
7 December 1968 and both ratings were unsatisfactory from 19 August 1969 until he was discharged on 24 December 1969.

The applicant was convicted by summary courts-martial on two different occasions.  On 5 December 1968, while assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana for basic training, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 November through 3 December 1968.  On 
10 March 1969, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 3 March through 6 March 1969.  Both times he was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended) and forfeiture of pay.

Within a 6 month time frame the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four separate occasions.  On 27 March and 21 May 1969 , he accepted NJP's for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (25 March and 19 May 1969).  On 7 June 1969, he accepted NJP for being absent from his place of duty (3 June1969).  On 13 August 1969, he accepted NJP for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer.  His punishments included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 17 September 1969, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  Even though he was diagnosed to have an antisocial personality disorder, he was found to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  Further, it was determined that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 3 November 1969, the commander recommended that a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for the purpose of determining whether the applicant should be discharged for unsuitability before the expiration of his term of service.

On 3 November 1969, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving an undesirable discharge (UD).  He waived further representation by legal counsel, and he waived consideration of his case, or a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 7 November 1969, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability, by reason of character and behavior disorder. 

On 24 December 1969, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
1 year, 1 month and 26 days of active military service and he had a total of
12 days lost time.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unsuitable for further service by reason of a character and behavior disorder.  Under this regulation and paragraph the appropriate authority could approve an honorable, or a general discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant was properly separated in accordance with regulations then in effect and there is no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  His misconduct and poor duty performance diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 

4.  A professionally trained psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and he has submitted no probative evidence to the contrary.

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 under current standards.

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

JMA____   JLP_____  SC______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999017816	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	25 February 1999	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19691224	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Request upgrade to HD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.