APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was inequitable because his family situation was not taken into account by his superiors and no one told him he could apply for a hardship discharge.  His health now is such that he needs care.  Due to the type of discharge he received, he is unable to obtain care at any VA facility.  He includes letters of support from his local sheriff’s office, the mayor’s office and a neighbor.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  

The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 30 March 1947.  He completed 5 years of formal education.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 15.  He was inducted into the Army on 13 November 1968 for 2 years. He did not complete basic combat training.

On 5 May 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 21 January - 19 March 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, suspended, and to forfeit $30 pay for 3 months.

On 11 September 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for the period 11 May - 26 August 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

On 24 September 1969, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was diagnosed with an inadequate personality, chronic, severe.  The evaluating physician recommended he be separated as unsuitable.

On 30 September 1969, the company commander initiated separation action under AR 635-212 for unfitness.  The applicant had no previous record of any disciplinary action taken.  The applicant was advised of his rights by counsel.  He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; elected not to make a statement on his behalf; and waived representation by counsel.

On 9 October 1969, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 15 October 1969, the applicant was discharged, under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-212, for misconduct.  He had completed 2 months and 14 days of creditable active service and had 262 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

Unless the disease or injury is service-connected, the VA requires a veteran to have at least 180 days of active duty to be eligible for treatment in their facilities.

On 2 April 1975 and 17 April 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf and elected not to do so.  He was afforded the opportunity to have his case heard by a board of officers and waived that right.  The type of discharge directed was appropriate considering the seriousness of the misconduct.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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

                                                          Loren G. Harrell
					     Director