MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            18 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018718

	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. Ed Clark		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was not the result of a court-martial but rather was offered to him as a way out of a depressing experience; therefore, the character of service should have been honorable.  In a document attached to his application, he further stated that his civilian conviction was used to deny him service as a criminal investigator; that the denial of his enlistment in that branch of service resulted in him becoming "a 4 year draftee" and caused him to suffer emotional stress which led to his discharge; and that he was led to believe that his discharge could be upgraded since he was discharged for being socially unfit.

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

On 31 July 1969, after signing a Statement for Enlistment, DA Form 3286, in which he denied that he had ever been arrested or convicted of any offense, he was enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years for training and subsequent service as a criminal investigator. 

On 6 May 1970, following three periods of AWOL and other absences for which he received NJP while he was in a trainee status, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  The Report of Psychiatric Evaluation shows that he diagnosed as suffering from "Antisocial personality disorder, severe."   The examining psychiatrist wrote "This 20 year old EM has used a lot of alcohol and drugs, and has a long list of serious offenses on his civilian police record.  He has no desire to remain in the Army."

On 8 June 1970 the applicant's commander recommended that he be separated by reason of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The commander cited the aforementioned diagnosis and the applicant's "repeated AWOL's" as the basis for the recommendation.

After being counseled by a military lawyer, the applicant waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers, and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 7 July 1970 the recommendation was approved by the convening authority, a major general, who directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 16 July 1970, with 8 months and 15 days total active service, and 93 days time lost, he was discharged.

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

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Separation for unfitness under this chapter normally warranted an undesirable discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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.  The applicant, with a criminal record, repeated periods of AWOL, and a diagnosis of a severe antisocial personality disorder, was appropriately separated from active duty with an undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant's brief period of military service does not warrant a characterization of honorable.

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

JMA_____  KYF____  EWL____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11438/ar1999018718	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 March 18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700716	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.