MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE:
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC

         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
M		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr.		Chairperson
Mr.		Member
Mr.		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: Correction of errors on his DD Form 214, i. e., his rank, the authority and reason for his discharge, the related occupation code, his secondary military occupational specialty (MOS), the time lost, his medals and decorations and his last name.

APPLICANT STATES: He was wrongfully discharged. He provides a copy of his birth certificate.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 December 1976. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 36D (Antennaman).

On 5 December 1977, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order and being absent from his place of duty. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, suspended.

On 2 May 1978, the applicant was arrested by the military police at the scene of the crime for assault, larceny of private property and damage to private property. There is no record of any disciplinary action taken.

On 14 June 1978, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for wrongfully possessing 6 grams, more or less, or marijuana. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2.

On 15 June 1978, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-31, expeditious discharge. The commander cited his demonstrated hostility towards the military and evidence of his social and emotional maladjustment.

On 19 June 1978, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 19 June 1978, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

The applicant acknowledged notification of the action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.

On 27 June 1978, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 20 - 23 June 1978. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 27 June 1978, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 3 July 1975, he departed Germany for separation at Fort Dix, NJ but instead reported to Fort Sheridan, IL.

On 4 August 1978, at Fort Sheridan, IL he was discharged with a characterization of service of “under honorable conditions” (a general discharge), in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31. He had completed 1 year, 6 months and 25 days of creditable active service and had 9 days of lost time. He had been awarded the Army of Occupation Medal (for Berlin) and the marksman badge for the M-16.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that members who have completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged. It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary. No member will be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon discharge or release from active military service. The DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty or discharge.

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. 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.

2. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He voluntarily consented to the discharge. The characterization of service given was appropriate considering his overall military record.

3. The applicant’s name as shown on his birth certificate is slightly different (one “L” instead of two “Ls”) from that shown on his DD Form 214. However, he enlisted in the name using 2 “Ls,” he signed his name with two “Ls” throughout his enlistment, and there is no evidence that he ever attempted to have the spelling of his name changed.

4. His rank and date of rank on his DD Form 214 are incorrect. They should have been shown as PV1 E1, date of rank 780627. He apparently departed Germany before the reduction from his last Article 15 could be posted to his records.

5. There is no evidence of record he was ever awarded a secondary MOS and he does not supply any. The related occupation code pertains to his primary MOS and its civilian equivalent, not to his actual civilian occupation.

6. There is no evidence of record the applicant was ever awarded medals or decorations other than the Army of Occupation Medal and the marksman badge M-16 and he does not supply any.

7. The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record shows the applicant was AWOL from 25 May - 2 June 1978. There is evidence of record that he was involved in a traffic accident on 17 May 1978, but there is no evidence nor does he supply any that it was in any way related to his period of AWOL.

8. 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