MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             13 May 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC97-10655

	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:


Analyst

	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 a general/under honorable conditions (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he just graduated high school, got drafted, and was scared; that he was young and was never treated in such a manner; that he just couldn’t adjust to military life; and that he really did try.

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

On 4 October 1966 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years at the age of 19.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for advanced individual training (AIT).

The applicant's record of service indicates the highest grade he held on active duty was private/E-1 and contains no documented evidence of acts of achievement, valor, or service meriting special recognition.  However, there is an extensive record of disciplinary infractions which include: a special court-martial conviction; acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, on three separate occasions; repeated incidents of AWOL; and military confinement.

On 15 December 1966 the applicant accepted an NJP for disrupting training and was punished with a forfeiture of $10.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.  

On 21 January 1967, while still in AIT, the applicant went AWOL and remained absent for 23 days until 13 February 1967 and accepted an NJP for this offense on 15 February 1967.  The resultant punishment was forfeiture of $20.00 and 
14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 26 March 1967 he again went AWOL and remained away for 2 days until 
28 March 1967.  On 29 March 1967 he accepted an NJP for this offense and was punished with a forfeiture of $23.00.

On 29 June 1967 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for two specifications of violation of Article 86 for being AWOL from  9 April to 28 May 1967 and from 2 to 14 June 1967; in addition, the applicant was charged with one specification of violation of Article 134 for breaking restriction.  He was found guilty of all charges and specifications and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $64.00 per month for 4 months.  

On 10 August 1967 the applicant was released from confinement and after completing his AIT was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland; however, he did not report until January 1968 after being AWOL for 116 days.

On 11 August 1971 the applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unfitness, he completed his election of rights by making the following elections:  to waive his right to consideration of his case before a board of officers; to waive his right to personal appearance before a board of officers; to waive representation by counsel; and he elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 19 August 1971 the applicant’s unit commander forwarded his recommendation to separate the applicant for unfitness, under the provisions of AR 635-212.  The commander cited the applicant’s repeated AWOL infractions; his 150 days of time lost; and his conviction by special court-martial, as his reasons for the action.

On 3 September 1971 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant receive a UD.  Accordingly, on 9 September 1971 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 19 days of active military service, and accruing 150 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

On 11March 19810 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.

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, it is concluded:

1. The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  There was no evidence of arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the chain of command.  However, there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that 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