MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058663

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he thought an under honorable conditions (general discharge) would not prohibit him from obtaining education benefits.  However, he recently applied for education benefits and was told by the Department of Veterans Affairs that he was not eligible for education benefits because he does not have an honorable discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 30 May 2001, from a Veterans Representative and numerous copies of his military personnel records.  

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

Having prior service in the National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 September 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He served as an artillery crewman and was honorably discharged on 26 September 1965 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 27 September 1965 for a period of 6 years.  

Between 16 March 1966 and 16 April 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on two occasions for being absent from his place of duty and disobeying two lawful orders. 

The applicant served as a field artillery crewman in Vietnam from 12 February 1967 through 11 February 1968.     

Between 10 April 1968 and 22 April 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on two occasions for disobeying two lawful orders and being absent without leave (AWOL).

On 12 September 1968 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 6 May 1968 to 17 August 1968.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months) and forfeit $63 pay per month for 6 months.  On 19 September 1968 the convening authority approved the sentence.

On 3 July 1969 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 
2 May 1969 to 17 June 1969 and from 17 June 1969 to 22 June 1969.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, forfeit $97 pay per month for 6 months and reduced to pay grade E-1.  On 14 July 1969 the convening authority approved the sentence.

On 2 December 1969 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 20 September 1969 to 13 November 1969.  He was sentenced to forfeit 

$80 pay per month for 2 months, perform extra duty for one hour per day for 
30 days, to be reprimanded and placed on restriction for 60 days.  On 
31 December 1969 the convening authority approved the sentence.

On 24 June 1970 applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 
2 February 1970 to 8 June 1970.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 2 months, forfeit $50 pay per month for 2 months and reduced to pay grade E-1.  On 13 July 1970 the convening authority approved the sentence.

On 20 July 1970 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.

On 20 July 1970 the applicant’s unit commander initiated a recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The unit commander recommended separation with an undesirable discharge.  

On 20 July 1970, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and furnished an undesirable discharge.

On 21 August 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 4 September 1970 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 4 years, 
7 months and 29 days of total active service with 640 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement. 

On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to honorable to allow him entitlement to education benefits.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining education benefits. 

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s previous request for a discharge upgrade.

5.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due to AWOL and confinement and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

6.  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 this requirement.

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

CLA____  CLG____  DPH_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058663	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700904	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness due to frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.