APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that his discharge was under honorable conditions. APPLICANT STATES: That, “in doing what was to me Honorable became Dishonorable to another”. He provides 3 letters in support of his request. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 8 September 1965, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). On 20 September 1965, he requested a hardship discharge based on his father’s medical condition. On 3 November 1965, the command disapproved his request because he “failed to substantiate undue and genuine hardship conditions which would warrant release from active military service”. On 8 January 1966, he was advanced to pay grade E-2. On 14 March 1966, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 12 February- 11 March 1966. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E1, a forfeiture, and restriction. On 21 June 1966, he was convicted by a Special Court-martial (SPCM) for being AWOL for the periods 15 March-15 April and 15 April-6 June 1966. His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months and a forfeiture for a like period. On 18 January 1967, he was convicted by a SPCM for violating the conditions of his parole on or about 20 August 1966. His sentence included CHL for 6 months and a forfeiture for a like period. On 9 November 1967, a psychiatric evaluation cleared the applicant for separation. On 15 November 1967, he was convicted by SPCM for AWOL for the period 4 May-27 October 1967. His sentence included CHL for 6 months and a forfeiture for a like period. The unit commander advised him of his recommendation to separate him under Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness and of his rights. On 6 December 1967, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s action; waived consideration of and personal appearance before a board of officers; elected not to submit statements in his own behalf; and, declined legal counsel. On 6 December 1967, the appropriate separation authority directed his discharge because of unfitness and that he be furnished a Undesirable Discharge (UD) Certificate. On 13 December 1967, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a UD, under the above cited regulation. His Report of Separation indicates that he had 9 months and 8 days of creditable service and 518 days of lost time. 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. A UD 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. 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’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record. 3. In view of the applicant’s numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his UD was inappropriate. 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director