MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060051

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had an alcohol and substance abuse problem.  He further states he had just completed the mandatory training for assignment to Vietnam and that the recommendation for his discharge by the commander came as a complete surprise to him.

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

The applicant enlisted and entered on active duty on 13 March 1967.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was then awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 70A10 “clerk”.

The applicant was then assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina (SC) to complete the mandatory training for a subsequent assignment to Vietnam.  He received nonjudicial punishment on 31 October 1967, for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.  The forfeiture of $23.00 for one month was the punishment imposed by the commander.

On 1 November 1967, unit orders number 77 announced his promotion to private first class (E-3).

On 3 November 1967, the applicant again received nonjudicial punishment for showing disrespect towards his superior officer, by contemptuously laughing at him.  He received an imposed punishment of reduction to grade E-1, forfeiture of $21.00 for one month, and restriction to the company area for 14 days with extra duty.

On 11 November 1967, he received a Summary Court Martial for breaking restriction.  His imposed punishment was confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $50.00.

On 2 January 1968, he was recommended for administrative separation due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature involving military and civilian authorities under the provisions of AR 635-212.

The commander referred him to the local mental health service for examination on 9 January 1968.  The applicant was found to be mentally responsible.  The diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality, chronic, severe, manifested by inability to tolerate moderate social pressures and feelings of inadequacy were recorded.  The applicant was mentally responsible and he was able to distinguish right from wrong, to adhere to the right and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate.

The records are absent of the discharge documents and are assumed by the Board to have been administratively correct in accordance with proper regulatory guidance.  On 29 February 1968, the applicant was discharged with 10 months, and 22 days active duty service.

There is no evidence available and the applicant did not provide information to determine whether he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth 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.

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’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The contention that he does not know why he was discharged is unsupported by the evidence of record.

3.  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.

4.  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

____tlp__  ___ra ___  ___ls____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060051	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/02/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.