MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:               15 July 1998                       
	DOCKET NUMBER:       AC97-09683

	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 his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young at the time of his military service and that his family was experiencing problems; that he went AWOL because his family needed him not because he was in trouble; and that he was not aware of the problems that a UD would cause him.

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

On 14 June 1965 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 21.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina where he remained to attend advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

The highest rank held by the applicant while serving on active duty was private/E-2 and the record documents no acts of valor, achievement; or service warranting special recognition.  However, the record does contain an extensive history of disciplinary infractions which includes the applicant undergoing a trial by summary court-martial and two trials by special court martial.

On 15 November 1965, while still in AIT, the applicant was tried by summary court-martial for violation of Articles 86 and 91 of the UCMJ.  The first charge was for being AWOL from 30 October to 3 November 1965 and the second charge was for willfully disobeying a lawful command from his commanding officer.  The applicant was found guilty and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and to forfeit $62.00.

On 21 April 1966 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86, for being AWOL from 6 December 1965 to 10 March 1966.  He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $60.00 per month for 6 months.

On 20 October 1966 the applicant was again tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 , for being AWOL from 8 June to 19 September 1966.  He was found guilty and the resultant sentence included a reduction to private/E-1; confinement at hard labor for 6 months; and forfeiture of $64.00 per month for 
6 months.  

The applicant was released from confinement on 4 December 1966.  He went AWOL again on 7 February 1967, was dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 
8 March 1967, and remained away until 14 January 1968.

On 1 March 1968 the applicant's unit commander advised the applicant of his intent to separate him from military service for unfitness, under the provisions of AR 635-212.  The unit commander's recommendation was based on the applicant’s record of disciplinary infractions, repeated incidents of AWOL, and record of courts-martial.  

On 5 March 1968 the applicant consulted counsel and completed his election of rights.  The applicant choose to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers and his right to personally appear before a board of officers.  Additionally, he certified his understanding of the possibility that he could encounter substantial prejudice based on receiving a UD and that there could be a loss of benefits as a veteran under federal and state law.

On 4 April 1968 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged for unfitness and furnished a UD.  Accordingly, on 10 April 1968 the applicant was discharged after completing 
9 months, and 1 day of credible active military service, and accruing 716 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

On 9 February 1983 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The Board noted applicant's contentions that his repeated AWOL’s were the result of immaturity and family problems.  However, the Board determined these contentions are not supported by either the evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant. 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.



2.  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.

3.  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