MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065634

	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
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | | Chairperson
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | | Member
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | | 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 (UD) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that the reason of his discharge was totally unjust.  He also indicates that he never received his Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB) and a promotion to which he was entitled, which he also feels was unjust.  Finally, he claims that his commander never followed normal policy or procedure.  

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

On 2 April 1971, he entered the enlistment under review.  At that time, he had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 7 days of prior honorable active duty service, held the rank of private/E-2 (PV2), and was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank he held on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4), which he attained on 21 September 1972.  It also verifies that he was reduced to 
private/E-2 on 11 October 1974 and to private/E-1 on 6 November 1974, due to his own misconduct.  There is no indication in the applicant’s record that he completed training in or was eligible for the EIB or that he was recommended for promotion at any time subsequent to his being promoted to SP4 in 1972.  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that confirms that during the enlistment under review, between 7 April 1971 and 10 July 1975, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on at least 13 separate occasions for a multitude of offenses.  

In addition, on 5 August 1971, the applicant was found guilty by a special 
court-martial of the following offenses:  absenting himself from his place of duty; willfully damaging a chair and table; willfully and wrongfully destroying a coffee cup and two model aircraft training aids; resisting lawful apprehension by an armed forces police officer; and assault.  

The record also contains a copy of a Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (DA Form 268), dated 5 December 1974, which confirms that on that date the applicant was pending separation processing under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.

The separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing is not in the record.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation and which identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge. 

The DD Form 214 confirms that on 2 September 1975, the applicant was undesirably discharged under the provisions of chapter 13-5a(1), Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness-frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities.  This document also confirms that he had completed 4 years, 3 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service on the enlistment and he had accrued 42 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in confinement.  

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 13-5a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An 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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that the reason for his discharge was unjust, and that he should have received the EIB and been promoted prior to his discharge.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.

2.  The applicant’s record contains no evidence that suggests that he was entitled to be awarded the EIB, or that he was recommended for promotion subsequent to 1972.  Therefore, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support his claims in regard to these two issues.  

3.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, it does include a properly constituted DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his discharge.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  

4.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, based on the applicant’s undistinguished record of service and his extensive disciplinary history, the Board finds that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  
5.  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.

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

__RVO__  __RJW__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2001065634
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/09
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/09/02
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C13
DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1.  189 | 110.0000
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |