MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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:  In effect, that his discharge be upgraded and that the reason and authority for his discharge be changed.  He also requests pay for that portion of his enlistment that was denied to him and the reenlistment bonus he was never paid.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not afforded a fair hearing at his separation board in that counsel was not appointed to defend him.

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

He was inducted in the Army on 21 September 1960 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 October 1960 for 3 years.  In conjunction with that enlistment he chose the Army Career Group option.  No other options were elected.

During the applicant’s enlistment he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on five occasions for disorderly conduct, failure to care for Government property, insubordination, AWOL and failure to repair.

He was also convicted by two summary courts-martial, one for leaving his appointed place of duty, and the other for disobeying a lawful order.

On 28 December 1962 a board of officers was convened to determine whether the applicant should be separated prior to the expiration of his term of service for unfitness.  The applicant was represented by counsel during that hearing, a lieutenant Robert J. Palsha.  On 29 December 1962 the board found that the applicant was unfit for further service and recommended that he be given an undesirable discharge.

That recommendation was approved and the applicant was given an undesirable discharge for unfitness on 4 February 1963.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and: reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was impracticable, such as in cases of confirmed drug addiction or when the medical and/or personal history indicated that the individual was not amenable to rehabilitation measures; or disposition under other regulations was inappropriate.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking.  When discharge under this authority was ordered, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances a general or honorable discharge was authorized, as directed by the convening authority.
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, he was represented by counsel at his separation board hearing.

2.  As for him not receiving a bonus, he did not enlist for a bonus.  His only enlistment option was a choice of training.
 
3.  In view of the preceding and in consideration of the applicant’s repeated misconduct, there was no error or injustice in the type of discharge he received.

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

_TNK___  _JPI_____  _JPS ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998003502/ac98-11416	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19630204	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A50.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.