IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  22 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150003499 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  Both his age and demographic background limited him from establishing a family-like bond with his fellow Soldiers.

	b.  While he was honestly committed to the United States Armed Services, he lacked the skills as an adult male which interfered with him being able to conduct himself as he should.

	c.  He did not set the fire in the barracks; it was a young white male who did not want to be in the Army or made to serve his country.

	d. He felt helpless during the fire like he had no other choice but to leave or stay and risk his life or be permanently scarred as a result of someone else’s actions.

	e.  He wants to improve the quality of his life and consideration should be given to him because not all humans mature at the same time.

	f.  He was shot six times since his discharge leaving him severely disabled with no use of his legs and in need of a second hip replacement.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140008152, on 6 January 2015.

2.  The applicant provides a new argument which warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant was born on 24 August 1951.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 29 January 1971, at the age of 19 and successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

4.  A FGSESS Form 890 (Faculty Board Action) shows:

	a.  He entered advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS)  31M (Radio Relay Carrier) on 4 May 1971.

	b.  On 10 September 1971, he was confined to the Fort Gordon Stockade for misconduct pending military trial.  

	c.  In the 11th week of training his attitude changed from satisfactory to very unsatisfactory and a recommendation was made to reclassify him out of the MOS 31M course.

5.  His record shows he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice five times on the following dates as indicated:

* 7 June 1971 for being absent from his appointed place of duty on 4 June 1971
* 18 June 1971 for breaking restriction on 11 June 1971
* 9 August 1971 for being absent from his appointed place of duty on 5 August 1971
* 24 August 1971 for disobeying a lawful order on 21 August 1971
* 3 September 1971 for disobeying a lawful order on 27 August 1971 and for twice failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place duty on 30 August 1971 and 1 September 1971

6.  On 10 October 1971, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted the applicant of disobeying a lawful order on 10 September 1971.  His sentence was confinement at hard labor for 4 months and a forfeiture of $75.00 pay for 4 months. 

7.  On 19 October 1971, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which showed:

* his behavior and thought content were normal, he was fully alert and oriented, he had a level mood, his thinking process was clear, his memory was good, and he had no significant mental illness
* he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings

8.  On 29 October 1971, the applicant's unit commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness.  

9.  On 1 November 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, and the rights available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and to representation by counsel.  He further elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 16 November 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed he receive a UD.  On 26 November 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

11.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time confirms he completed a total of 7 months and 12 days of creditable active military service of which 77 days was time lost (due to confinement).  He authenticated this document with his signature.

12.  On 29 May 1985, after having carefully reviewed the applicant’s record and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board concluded the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and voted to deny his request for an upgrade.


13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures honorable discharge or general discharge if warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, a UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under this regulation for unfitness.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his UD should be upgraded because his age and demographic background limited his ability to establish a family-like bond with his fellow Soldiers and because he lacked the skills to conduct himself as an adult.  There is insufficient evidence in his available record to support this claim nor did he provide evidence to support his new statement.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was 19 years of age at the time he enlisted and he successfully completed basic combat training and the first 10 weeks of MOS training.  There is no evidence that his extensive history of misconduct evidenced by his acceptance of NJP on five separate occasions and his SPCM conviction was the result of his demographic background, age, or that he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their terms of service.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  Further, based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant’s service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct renders his service unsatisfactory.    


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ____x___  ___x_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140008152 dated 6 January 2015.



      _______ _   _x______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150003499



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150003499



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1