MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 November 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074708

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hall .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he only reenlisted because he was promised training as a helicopter mechanic.  The training did not materialized and because promises were broken he was absent without leave (AWOL).

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

The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 May 1961 for 3 years.
On 23 December 1963 he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 24 December 1963 the applicant reenlisted for 
3 years.  

While assigned to a unit at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from 20 to 23 May 1963.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of $28.00, and 14 days restriction.

On 5 February 1964, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order and for being AWOL from his unit from 0600 hours on 3 February to 2300 hours 
on 4 February 1964.  The punishment imposed was reduction to pay grade 
E-2,  forfeiture of $28.00, and 14 days restriction.  

On 31 March 1964, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 6 to 9 March 1964 and from 9 to 20 March 
1964.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months).

A mental status evaluation and a separation medical examination found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings. 

The applicant's DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows additional periods of AWOL and confinement.  However, the facts concerning those periods of AWOL are missing from his records.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 indicates that on 
17 June 1964 he was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  He had served 3 months and 17 days of total active service this enlistment and had 67 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Section II of the regulation
Provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent 
involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 considered the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not available.

3.  The Board reviewed the available records pertaining to the applicant's service, which included two NJPs and one SPCM for periods of AWOL.

4.  Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge.  The Board also determined the applicant's service was not satisfactory; therefore, he did not meet the criteria for a general discharge.

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
6.  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.

7.  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

__SAC__  __RWA__  ___HOF__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074708	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1964/06/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	A51.00	
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.