MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           5 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082256

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant does not provide any matters for the Board to consider.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1965, was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.

He served in Europe from 9 December 1965 to 26 June 1966, and in Vietnam from 25 April 1967 to 28 November 1968.  While in Vietnam, on 22 November 1967 the applicant reenlisted.

On 11 July 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order, and for failure to go at the time prescribed (two counts).

On 11 August 1969, the applicant accepted NJP for absenting himself from his place of duty.

On 21 October 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 July to 29 July 1970; of being AWOL from 2 to 28 August 1970; and of being AWOL from 1 to 15 September 1970.  

On 19 February 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 November 1970 to 17 February 1971.

On 5 April 1971, the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He had a total of 4 years, 9 months and 7 days creditable service, and 337 days of lost time.  The applicant’s separation document shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 device, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal (for his first period of service).

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 a 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 and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s records clearly show a pattern of repeated misconduct which would warrant an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

2.  While the applicant’s actual discharge proceedings are not contained in his records, in the absence of documentation to show otherwise, the Board must presume regularity, that what the Army did was proper and just.

3.  Since the applicant has not submitted any specific matters which the Board could consider in determining whether his discharge should be upgraded based on equity , there is no basis for granting his 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

___tbr ___  ___kah__  ____aao_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082256	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030605	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A50.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.