MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 10 April 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001051266

         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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson
Mr. James E. Anderholm		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: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he does not know why he received an undesirable discharge and contends that it was unjust to do so because he earned the Good Conduct Medal and would not have received it had there been a problem.

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

The applicant enlisted in Dallas, Texas on 28 January 1964 for a period of 3 years. He served a complete tour in Vietnam and two complete tours of duty in Germany while he remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 20 November 1969.

On 30 April 1974, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions regarding his financial obligations, his disregard of verbal and written orders from the commander that he was not to borrow money from the cadre of his unit, uttering bad checks, and living beyond his means. The recommendation was forwarded through channels and was subsequently returned to the commander for administrative corrections.

However, on 26 July 1974, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s established pattern of shirking, dishonorable failure to pay numerous just debts, his record of nonjudicial punishment totaling five, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions regarding his indebtedness, sexual perversion, dishonesty and four civilian charges. The recommendation contained an extensive number of exhibits (61) to support the commander’s contentions.

The applicant exercised his rights and elected to be represented by counsel and to appear before a board of officers. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 26 September 1974, a board of officers was convened at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and the applicant was represented by counsel. After hearing extensive testimony from the applicant, his counsel, and several witnesses, the board adjourned to review the extensive amount of documents submitted by the chain of command and the applicant. The board members conducted phone call interviews with the applicant’s creditors and again convened and conducted a cross-examination of the applicant in regards to his extensive indebtedness. It appears, by reading the board proceedings that the applicant was less than truthful about his debts during the cross-examination. The board again adjourned before returning with a determination that the applicant’s debts were valid and that he had made little or no attempts to satisfy those debts. The process took 7 hours before the board of officers recommended that the applicant should be separated under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the board findings and recommendation on 4 October 1974 contending that the evidence submitted was untruthful and that the board’s decision was based on erroneous information. He requested that he be given a 6-month probationary period to demonstrate his ability to be a good soldier. The convening authority denied his request.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 November 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness based on chronic default of payment of legal debt. He had served 10 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and two awards of the Good Conduct Medal (last award in January 1970).

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) twice in 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined in March and September 1977 that he had been properly discharged and that there was no basis to upgrade his discharge.

A review of the applicant’s evaluation reports show that as early as 4 years prior to his discharge, his chain of command began to comment on his indebtedness.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 established policy and procedures for separating personnel for unfitness. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

---

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4. The applicant’s contention that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and that this in itself is sufficient to show that he was deserving of a better discharge, appears to be without merit. The applicant received two awards of the Good Conduct Medal over a 10-year period when he normally would have received three awards, one for every 3 years. Notwithstanding this fact, the Board finds that the receipt of an award is not always in itself a sufficient basis to upgrade a discharge involving misconduct or failure to pay just debts.

5. The Board also finds after reviewing the board proceedings and extensive evidence that accompanied it, that the applicant was afforded every opportunity and all of the support expected by his chain of command to resolve his debts and he simply chose not to do so. Consequently, the chain of command had no choice but to take the action it did.

6. 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 this requirement.

7. 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

____ja __ ___sw___ ___gp___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051266
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2001/04/10
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/11/11
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch13
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 596	144.5500/A55.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.