MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           28 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-05807
				   AR199801084

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 discharge under conditions other than honorable be upgraded in order to receive medical assistance to rebuild his life.

APPLICANT STATES:  That clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  He states under current standards he would not have received an adverse discharge and his conduct and efficiency ratings were good.  He states that he received awards and decoration, served successfully in combat, and was too close to completing his tour in the Army to receive a bad discharge.  He states that his court-martial convictions, nonjudicial punishment, and record of AWOL were isolated incidents.  He also states that his youth and immaturity and personal problems impaired his ability to serve.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant’s limited education impaired his ability to complete his military service.  Counsel states that the applicant served successfully in Vietnam.  Counsel also contends that drugs were easily obtained in Vietnam and if drugs were not so rampant, the applicant would have avoided his drug usage and misconduct. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 18 November 1969 for a period of 3 years and was 18 years old.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 36C (Lineman).  His highest rank attained was private first class (E-3).

He received nonjudicial punishment on 9 April 1970 for being AWOL from 6 April through 7 April 1970 while attending advanced individual training (AIT).  Upon completion of AIT the applicant was assigned to Germany.  The applicant did not report to Fort Dix, New Jersey for his overseas movement and was declared AWOL on 23 June 1970.  

He was returned to military control on 31 October 1970 at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Dix, New Jersey.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 7 December 1970 for being AWOL from 23 June 1970 through 31 October 1970.  He was sentenced to 3 months confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $88.00 pay per month for 3 months.  The convening authority approved the sentence and the applicant was placed in confinement.  He completed his confinement and was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland on 23 March 1971.

The applicant completed his tour at Fort Meade and was assigned to Vietnam.  He served in Vietnam from 8 August 1971 through 9 April 1972.  While assigned to Vietnam he received nonjudical punishment for sleeping on duty, disobeying a lawful order by his battalion commander, possessing a small amount of heroin, and for possession of an unauthorized plastic vial during urinalysis testing.  
He was placed in the hospital on 4 April 1972 for drug treatment.  On 13 April 1972 the applicant was reassigned to the Medical Holding Company, Fort Riley, Kansas for additional drug treatment.  He received nonjudical punishment on 
2 May 1972 for assaulting a military policeman.

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his separation document (DD Form 214) shows he was administratively discharged on 17 May 1972 under the provisions paragraph 6a (1), Army Regulation 635-212, for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 1 year, 9 months, 23 days of his Army enlistment.

The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board on 17 September 1974, 10 June 1978, and 
15 November 1979, and all were denied.  He also submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, and it was denied on 11 February 1976.

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 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.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a (1), frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s good service during the enlistment under review; however, this service was not found to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade in the characterization of his service

4.  The Board notes that the applicant’s record of AWOL, nonjudical punishment, and court-martial conviction received by the applicant exhibited a continued pattern of misconduct and were merely not isolated incidents.

5.  The applicant’s and counsel’s contentions that his personal problems, youth and immaturity, limited education, and the rampant accessibility of drugs impaired his ability to serve are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or in the evidence of record.

6. 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

____X____  _____X___  ___X_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.