MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:        


	BOARD DATE:             23 September 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC96-08812

	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. Loren G. Harrell

Director

Mr. Joseph A. Adriance

Analyst


  The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Thomas D. Howard Jr.

Chairperson

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn

Member

Mr. George D. Paxson

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 to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was never given alcohol counseling; that he had a deficient emotional upbringing; and that he was coerced into signing his discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant has adequately stated the issues.

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

On 24 May 1965 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years while assigned in Fountainbleu, France.  At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 14 days of honorable service; attained the rank of private first class/E-3; held military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook); and earned the National Defense Service Medal.

The applicant’s record, for the period of service under review, documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, there is an extensive history of performance and conduct problems.  These problems are evidenced by the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ; his undergoing trial by special court-martial, on three separate occasions; and his trial by general court-martial.

On 7 February 1966 the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent from his place of duty without proper authority.  His punishment for this offense was a suspended reduction to private/E-2.  

On 8 March 1967 the applicant was tried by general court-martial for being AWOL from 8 July to 27 December 1966.  He was found guilty and sentenced to forfeit $20.00 per month for 6 months and to be confined at hard labor for 
1 month.  

On 17 July 1967 the applicant underwent his first of three trials by special court-martial for being AWOL from 23 May to 12 June 1967.  The resultant punishment was forfeiture of $20.00 per month for 2 months and to perform hard labor without confinement for 3 months.  

On 18 October 1967 the applicant underwent his second trial by special court-martial for being AWOL from 3 September to 4 October 1967.  He was found guilty, and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and to be reduced to the rank of private/E-1.
On 29 February 1968 the applicant was tried and convicted by special court-martial for being AWOL from 26 January to 19 February 1968. His sentence was confinement at hard labor for 4 months and  forfeiture of $59.00 per month for 4 months.

Specific facts and circumstances concerning events that led to the applicant’s  discharge from the Army are not on file.  However, the evidence of record does include the separation authority’s approval endorsement which directs the applicant’s discharge, under the provisions of AR 635-212, with a UD.  The record also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason for discharge as unfitness, the characterization of service as under conditions other than honorable, and the discharge issued as undesirable.  The DD Form 214 also documents that on
5 April 1968 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 8 days of his current enlistment, a total of 3 years, 8 months, and 18 days of active military service, and accruing 364 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.

On 9 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.


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 concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.




2.  The contentions of the applicant and his counsel, that being denied alcohol counseling and that an emotionally deficient upbringing impaired his ability to serve, have been noted by the Board.  However, the Board concludes these claims are not supported by the evidence of record.

3.  There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was coerced into signing his discharge.  The Board noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process and determined the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  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.

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




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director