MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 26 November 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077706

         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
Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able		Member
Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he knows of no reason why his service was characterized as anything but honorable. He followed orders and performed his duties to the best of his ability at all times. He provides his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, and three character witness statements as supporting evidence. All three witness statements attest to the fact the witnesses have known the applicant for the past 30, 10, and 12 years, respectively, and that he is a good family man and member of his community.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Makes no additional contentions.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 October 1970. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).

Documents in the applicant's personnel records show that on 14 May 1971 he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for striking a trainee.

The applicant's personnel records contain a certificate from his company commander indicating the applicant was counseled on or about 10 May 1971 about his poor duty performance, his lack of knowledge which made him a burden to the mess operations, and his tendency to drink to excess.

On 12 October 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for dereliction in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to report to the mess hall.

On 13 October 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absenting himself from his unit.

On 5 November 1971, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

---

On 5 November 1971, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation. He was found to be mentally responsible, to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.

The applicant's personnel records contain a 16 November 1971 statement from his company commander indicating the applicant got into a fight on 26 August 1971 in another unit and got thrown out of that unit's barracks. He was drunk and wanted to get even so he went back to his company and got a can of gasoline and threatened to burn the other barracks down. Both units' charge of quarters ordered him to go to bed and sleep it off but he ignored both. No punishment was administered. On 22 September 1971, the company mess sergeant reported the applicant late for work. The applicant was late for work on 24 September 1971 and again on 5 October 1971. He was late for work again on 12 October and 19 October 1971. On 2 November 1971, the applicant reported for work but later told the mess personnel he was going to the barracks to use the latrine. When he did not return after an hour, he was found asleep on his bunk. The applicant was then relieved from his duties and informed elimination action would be initiated.

On 17 November 1971, the applicant's company commander initiated elimination action against him under Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. The applicant was advised of his rights by counsel. He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; and waived representation by counsel. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 November 1971, the company commander recommended the applicant be eliminated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. The cited reasons for the action were the applicant's inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, lack of appropriate interest, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. It was recommended he receive a general discharge.

On 19 November 1971, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 12 January 1972, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 22 days of creditable active service and had 2 days of lost time.

---

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, an inability to expend effort constructively, alcoholism, and enuresis. A general under honorable conditions characterization of service was normally appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation governing the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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 this requirement.

2. 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.

3. The evidence of record shows that the applicant had numerous incidents of misconduct during his service that justified the characterization of his service as general under honorable conditions rather than fully honorable.

4. The Board is cognizant of the applicant's good post-service conduct. This factor, however, does not warrant granting the relief requested.

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

_ _SAC _ __RWA_ ___HOF__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077706
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/26
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/01/12
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.