APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his bad conduct discharge/under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he did not receive an explanation of why or what type of discharge he was being given, and that he did not even know when he was discharged until 17 years later.

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

On 12 March 1969 he was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  At the time of his induction he was just eight days short of his 20th birthday and had no prior active or reserve military service.

He successfully completed basic combat training at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, advanced individual training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

On 5 May 1969 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for his first recorded AWOL episode which took place on 
3 May 1969 while he was still in basic training.

While enroute to the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia the applicant had two further incidents of AWOL; the first between 8 July and 12 August 1969 (35 days), and the second between 21 August and 23 September 1969 (33 days).  He was punished for these disciplinary infractions by special court-martial which sentenced him to 4 months confinement at hard labor and reduction to private/E-1.

The applicant was then transferred to the retraining brigade at Fort 	, Kansas to complete his confinement and in January 1970, upon completion of his punishment, he was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

In August 1970 the applicant began a series of AWOL incidents as follows: 4 August to 31 August 1970 (28 days); 4 September to 12 October 1970 (39 days); 2-24 November 1970 (23 days); and 27 November to 17 December 1970 (21 days), for which he received a second special court martial which was adjudged on 29 January 1971, affirmed on 13 May 1971, and sentenced the applicant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 months, and reduction to private/E-1.

The applicant was in military confinement from 18 December 1970 until 5 March 1971 (55 days) at which point he again went AWOL, a status he remained in until 2 May 1971 
(58 days).  On 18 May 1971 an order was published remitting the remaining portion of the applicant's confinement sentence, effective upon his discharge.

Accordingly, on 25 May 1971, the applicant was discharged, under other than honorable conditions, and issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate after completing 11 months, 
17 days of active military service, and accumulating 447 days of time lost.

Records on file, at the Army Review Board Agency, reveal that the applicant has received several sympathetic and impartial reviews of his case which have failed to produce evidence to support error or injustice warranting correction of the applicant's Army record.

On 25 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

On 11 March 1982 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied a request from the applicant for a discharge upgrade without a hearing.  This determination was based on a failure by the applicant to submit sufficient relevant evidence to warrant a formal hearing.

On 21 September 1983, in a response to a 13 April 1983 application for correction of military records submitted by the applicant, the Army Board of Correction for Military Records, upheld it's earlier determinations and found that there was no basis to support changing the decision previously rendered.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and 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 Trail by Court Martial was warranted based on his repeated incidents of AWOL, even after he had experienced a previous conviction for similar conduct, and his failure to respond to all rehabilitation attempts.

3.  His contentions that he needs medical care from a veterans administration medical center, that the reasons for and type of discharge were not properly explained to him, and that he was unaware of the discharge information until 17 years later were considered but were determined to provide an insufficient basis to upgrade his discharge.

4.  There is documented evidence that the applicant was fully aware of the of all aspects of his discharge processing, and that he was afforded all rights associated with the action.  At the time of separation he acknowledged receipt of the court martial board proceedings, and authenticated a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces Of The United States Report of Transfer Or Discharge) which documented the type, the reason, and the authority for his discharge.

5.  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