MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC96-09928

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:




	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 he would like his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he does not believe he was unable to adapt to military life; that he can adapt and he would like a chance to start over again; and that he is not the same person he was 20 years ago.

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

On 31 March 1975 the applicant reenlisted for 5 years while assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  At the time of his reenlistment he had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 2 days of honorable service; held military occupational specialty (MOS) 72C (Switchboard Operator), attained the rank of specialist/E-4; completed an overseas tour of duty in Korea; and had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal, and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

The applicant's record for the period of service under review includes no acts of valor, achievement, or service meriting special recognition.  However, there is an extensive record of disciplinary infractions.

On 9 July 1975 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for violation of Article 134, for wrongfully possessing marijuana.  His punishment for this offense was reduction to the grade of private first class/E-3 (suspended until 
17 September 1975); forfeiture of $25.00 per month for 
2 months, and extra duty for 30 days.

On 6 November 1975 the applicant accepted an NJP for 
violation of Article 86, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.  The resultant punishment was reduction to private first class/E-3.

On 17 December 1975 the applicant accepted an NJP for 
violation of Article 92, for failing to obey a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  The punishment was extra duty for 14 days and forfeiture of $50.00 (suspended until 17 February 1976).

On 6 January 1976 the applicant’s unit commander vacated the suspended forfeiture of $50.00 contained on the preceding NJP, and initiated a bar to reenlistment action on the applicant.  The appropriate authority approved the action and imposed the bar on the same date.

On 9 January 1976 the applicant accepted an NJP for 
violation of Article 86, for being AWOL from his place of duty on 6 January 1976.  The punishment was extra duty for 14 days and reduction to the grade of private/E-2 (suspended until 9 March 1976).

Between 17 December 1975 and 4 February 1976 the applicant was counseled on five occasions for disciplinary infractions concerning his attitude, appearance, and performance.

On 4 February 1976 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action, under the provisions paragraph 13-5b (3), AR 635-200, for unsuitability.

On 11 February 1976 the applicant consulted counsel, was advised of the basis for his contemplated action, and completed his election of rights.  The applicant waived his right to have his case be heard by an administrative separation board; his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers; his right to representation by counsel; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 March 1976 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD.  Accordingly, on 22 March 1976 the applicant was discharged after completing 11 months and 22 days of the period of service under review, and a total of 2 years,
8 months, and 23 days of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability.

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 noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, after examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, found no factors to mitigate the characterization of service received or warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are 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





						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director