MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  9 June 1999                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999022992

	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.		Chairperson	
	Mr.		Member	
	Mr.		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:  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have received a hardship discharge.  He was a young immature teenager who had never been away from home when he enlisted in the military.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) to take care of personal problems.

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

On 12 July 1967, both of the applicant's parents signed a deceleration of parental consent for him to enlist in the military.  On 24 July 1967, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  

While assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for basic individual training, the applicant went AWOL from 1 August - 4 August 1967.  There is no record of disciplinary action taken.  In October 1967, he was assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia for advanced individual training (AIT).  

On 8 December 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from Fort Belvoir from 18 November - 6 December 1967.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.  He completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94A (Cooks Helper).  

In January 1968, the applicant was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.  On 
28 March 1968 NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 4 March -
27 March 1968.  On 26 April 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 11 April - 25 April 1968.  His punishments included restriction, extra duty and forfeiture of pay. 

On 4 September 1968, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 3 June - 16 August 1968.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 45 days and forfeiture of pay.  

On 23 October 1968, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 October - 2 October 1968.  His punishment included restriction and forfeiture of pay.

On 25 October 1968, the applicant requested discharge due to hardship or dependency because his father was ill and his mother was unable to care for him.  On 15 November 1968, the applicant's request was denied.  On 
19 November 1968, he was notified that his request for discharge had been denied because his request did not meet the criteria for discharge.

On 20 November 1968, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to suffer from a chronic character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development.  It was determined that he was immature and that he would not be able to adjust to the military.  The recommendation was that he be separated from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability by reason of a character and behavior disorder.

Not all the facts concerning the discharge process are a matter of record.  However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report Directive completed in October 1981 shows that on 25 November 1968, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He waived consideration of his case, or a personal appearance before a board of officers.  The record does not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.

On 12 December 1968, both the applicant's unit commander and his intermediate commander recommended that he be separated with a UD for unfitness, by reason of an established pattern of shirking under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

On 23 December 1968, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. 

On 23 December 1968, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
1 year and 16 days of active military service and he had a total of 134 days lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.

Evidence of record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant an upgrade of his discharge on 19 October 1981. 

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 a UD, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Even though not all of the facts are available concerning the discharge process, the applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) during the discharge process. The discharge identifies the characterization and the reason.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age after parental consent was obtained.  The Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

4.  Notwithstanding the applicant's psychological evaluation, the Board found that his substandard service record did not warrant an upgrade for the period of service under review.

5.  Further, the board noted that the applicant had many other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

6.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

7.  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

________  _______  __________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022992	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	199900609	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681223	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Established pattern of shirking	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	He was young and immature.  He went AWOL to take care of personal problems.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.