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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told that he was to receive a general discharge.  He did not notice the error in his characterization of service until after he had arrived back home.

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

He enlisted on 24 November 1954 and was awarded the occupational specialty of infantryman.

On 26 January 1956 the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-Martial for being AWOL from 30 November to 20 December 1955.

On 27 April 1956 he was convicted by a second Special Court-Martial of being AWOL from 19 to 20 February 1956, 23 February, 26 February, and 12 to 14 March 1956.

On 6 September 1956 a board of officers was convened to consider if the applicant should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service.  The board found that the applicant demonstrated social or moral trends not conducive to continued service, including alcoholism, misconduct, and habitual shirking.  The board recommended that the applicant be given an undesirable discharge.

That recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 on 19 October 1956.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows that he had 1 year, 4 months and 10 days of creditable service and 198 days of lost time.  The applicant signed the DD Form 214 as the individual being discharged.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included repeated petty offenses/frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities, sexual perversion, drug abuse, use of marijuana and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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 aware of the type of discharge he was receiving, as evidenced by his signature on his DD Form 214.

2.  The applicant’s repeated unauthorized absences were clearly grounds for an undesirable discharge.  The two court-martials he was convicted by did nothing to alter his pattern of misconduct.  As such, the applicant’s undesirable discharge was appropriate and there is no reason to change it.

3.  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	AR1998003544	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19561019	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	 DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A50.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.