APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, if possible.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he needs an honorable discharge to get a job with the sheriff’s department.  He acknowledges he deserved an undesirable discharge and that he was irresponsible.  He’s made up for his mistakes the best he could through his two sons, both of whom were honor roll students and who have had successful military tours/careers.

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

He was born on 21 August 1942.  He completed 11 years of formal education.  On 7 September 1960 he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 111.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman).

The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on seven different occasions for disciplinary infractions such as:  sitting down while on guard duty; changing the date of birth on his identification card; traffic violations; leaving post without a pass; drinking alcoholic beverages while a minor, failure to repair and failure to clean his rifle.

The applicant was convicted by one special and two summary courts-martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from  10 - 12 July 1961 and 15 - 18 July 1961; from 0600 - 1625 hours 9 October 1962; and from 17 - 20 November 1962, respectively.  His sentences included forfeitures of pay, reductions to E-1, E-2 and E-1, respectively, and confinement at hard labor for his first and third convictions.

On 12 December 1962, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation.  No psychosis, neurosis, organic brain syndrome or mental deficiency was found.  He was found to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

The applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 14 December 1962, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers  and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 4 January 1963, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation  and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable  Discharge Certificate.

On 21 January 1963, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 2 months and 15 days of creditable active service and had 60 days of lost time (8 days AWOL and 52 days confinement). 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

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

3.  While the Board is empathetic and admires the success the applicant has had in the raising of his sons, this is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  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