MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             10 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1998014128

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 REQUESTS:  In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to upgrade his undesirable discharge (UD) to either a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  Through his counsel, a member of Congress, that in effect, he feels his whole situation was not evaluated fairly.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant has expressed to him that while he was AWOL on two occasions during his military service, the circumstances surrounding these events were not considered by the Army in characterizing his service.  According to the applicant the first time he was delayed in returning to duty it was because he could not travel due to a blizzard.  He goes on to indicate that snow removal was non-existent at that time and he did not have access to a phone to explain his situation.  The applicant states, that his second AWOL was the result of his vehicle being inoperable when it was time for him to return after a weekend pass.  He explains that when he called military officials to explain his problem he was told that this would not change his status when he returned, so he decided to remain away and did until he was apprehended by Military Police.  The applicant further states, through counsel, that he feels these circumstances were not given due consideration and are not reflected in the character of his discharge.  In addition, counsel has included with this application letters from employers and friends in support of the applicant, which attest to the applicant’s character and his status as an upstanding member of his community.  

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

The applicant’s official military personnel file was lost or destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.  The information contained herein was reconstructed from alternate sources, including documents submitted by the applicant and his counsel.

On 17 July 1953, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty at the age of 20.  During his military service he performed duties as an infantryman and served a tour of duty in Germany.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal.  There are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the available records.  

The evidence of record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces Record of Separation or Discharge from Active Duty) which was issued to and authenticated by the applicant on 21 December 1956, the date of his discharge.  This document shows that the applicant was separated, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  

The DD Form 214 also shows that, at the time of his discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 28 days of active service and had accrued 306 days of time lost due to AWOL.  It also shows that the applicant’s service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and that he was issued an UD.  

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  It stated, in pertinent part, that commanders would take separation action when they determined that it would be in the best interest of the service to eliminate the individual concerned.  Commanders were required to make a determination that reasonable rehabilitative attempts were not likely to result in the individual concerned becoming a productive soldier.  A under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and an UD were normally considered appropriate for individuals separated under these provisions.  

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 Board considered the factors submitted in mitigation by the applicant and his counsel and noted the applicant’s accomplishments in his community subsequent to his discharge.  However, none of these factors either individually or in sum, provide sufficient mitigation to warrant relief.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of specific facts and circumstances concerning events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the Board noted that the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Separation or Discharge from Active Duty) which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.

4.  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.

5.  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

__inw___  ___clg___  ___mvt__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998014128	
SUFFIX		
RECON	1998/05/06	
DATE BOARDED	1999/11/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1956/12/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.