1.	MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11241
				   AR1999015169

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. 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 REQUEST:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and immature during his period of enlistment in the Army.  He states that he did not steal the gun but could not prove his innocence.  He also states he has served his country and needs veterans benefits to buy a house. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army at the age of 17 with parental consent on 
23 November 1960 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 111.07 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  His highest rank attained was private first class (E-3).

The applicant was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order, for leaving patrol and not securing his weapon, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, and for failure to obey a lawful general order.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 27 October 1962 for being AWOL from 22 October through 24 October 1962 and convicted by a special court-martial on 8 May 1963 for being derelict in the performance of his duties.  He was also convicted by a special court-martial on 10 July 1963 for breaking restrictions and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

The applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, unsuitability.  The commander stated as the basis for the separation action the applicant’s numerous nonjudicial punishments and three court-martial convictions.  He acknowledged the separation action, waived his right to consulting counsel, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority and on 
21 August 1963 the applicant was discharged from the Army under other than honorable conditions.  He had served 2 years, 8 months, and 2 days of total active service.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.

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

___X_____  ___X_____  ___X_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11241	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999.01.26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.