MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       .

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 1999                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1998013181

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Margaret Thompson		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge is inequitable; that it was based on harassment and personality conflicts with his command; and that those conflicts impaired his ability to serve satisfactory.  He further states that the discharge is inequitable because he has been punished and has paid for the offense.

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

On 27 March 1956 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years.  He enlisted for the US Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 724.10 (Switchboard Operator), and assigned to Fort Gordon for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private /E-2 and that the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 1 January 1957, at Fort Gordon, the applicant was charged with assisting another enlisted member in the removal of bands from stolen watches and further assisting in the concealment of said watches.  He was further charged with receiving one of the said watches, the property of the United States, which he knew to be stolen property.  

On 8 February 1957 a neuropsychiatrist examined the applicant.  On 11 February 1957 the examination revealed the applicant suffered with a chronic, moderate to severe passive-aggressive reaction.

On 1 May 1957 he was sentenced to be confined for 3 months at hard labor and to forfeit $55.00 per month for 5 months.  On 2 May 1957 the sentence was approved.  The applicant was reduced in rank to private/E-1 and confined at the Post stockade for 82 days.

On 24 June 1957 his unit commander recommended that the applicant appear before a board of officers.  On 11 July 1957 the Board convened and found the applicant undesirable for further military service.  The Board recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge.  The appropriate authorities approved the findings of the Board.  Accordingly, on 22 July 1957 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-208.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be undesirable for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation normally receive a UD.

On 26 June 1959 the applicant applied for a review of his discharge from the Army.  On 9 July 1959 his request was forwarded to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  On 9 September 1959 the ADRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and found that he did not meet current requirements for enlistment in the RA.

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.  The record does not support the applicant’s contentions, and no evidence to support them have been submitted by the applicant, that his discharge is inequitable because it was based upon harassment and personality conflicts with his command or that his ability to serve was impaired because of these conflicts. Nor does the record support that the character of the discharge was too harsh.

2.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated his misconduct or poor duty performance.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  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.

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_____  __WTM______  __MT______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-08872	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19570722	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Undesirable for further service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9333		
2. 309		
3. 9401		
4.		
5.		
6.