MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.
	    -

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-10577

	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:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he deserves clemency because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the consequences of a bad discharge; that he would not have received a UD under current standards; the conduct and efficiency ratings were very good to excellent; that his record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), court-martial convictions, and AWOL offenses indicate only isolated or minor infractions; that his ability to serve was impaired by youth, immaturity, low aptitude scores, level of education, deprived background, alcohol, not working in the field he was trained for; that the punishment he got at discharge was too harsh and much worse than that received by most people for the same offense; that he tried to serve and wanted to but just couldn’t or wasn’t able to; that his discharge was based on many minor offenses; that his command abused its authority by giving him a bad discharge; that he tried to apply for a hardship discharge but was unfairly told to forget it; that his enlistment option was not satisfied; that his discharge was improper because his command did not follow discharge regulations; and that poor communication between him and counsel resulted in a poor presentation before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).

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

On 9 August 1960 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 18.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Upon completion of AIT the applicant was assigned to overseas duty in Germany for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record indicates that the highest rank he attained on active duty was private/E-2.  There are no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the record.  However, there is an extensive history of disciplinary infractions which began while he was still in training and did not end until the time of his separation.  These infractions include the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions; his conviction summary court-martial on two different occasions; and his conviction by special court-martial.

On 30 November 1960 while still in training at Fort Jackson the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial for being AWOL from 21 to 25 November 1960.  The resultant sentence included hard labor without confinement for 
45 days and forfeiture of $50.00.

On 20 March 1961 the applicant accepted an NJP for failure to repair and was punished with 14 days of extra duty.  On 12 April 1961 the applicant accepted his second NJP for missing bed check and was punished with 14 days of extra duty.

On 20 April 1961 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a government vehicle and for being AWOL on 
21 February 1961.  The resultant sentence consisted of 3 months of hard labor without confinement, forfeiture of $25.00 per month for 4 months, and reduction to the rank of recruit/E-1.

On 29 April 1961 the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial for being AWOL from 25 to 26 April 1961.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $30.00.

On 8 May 1961 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate elimination action, under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness. The commander cited the applicant’s continued disregard for military authority as exemplified by his unit punishment record, his acceptance of two NJP’s and his record of courts-martial, as the basis for taking action.

Also on 8 May 1961 the applicant, after being advised of his rights and the basis for the contemplated elimination action, elected to waive his right to have his case heard by a board of officers; to waive his right to counsel, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 9 May 1961 the applicant’s intermediate level commander recommended approval of the applicant’s elimination and stated that he had personally investigated the attempts at rehabilitation of the applicant and felt that further attempts would be a waste of effort.

The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed a UD be issued.  Accordingly, on 3 June 1961 the applicant was discharged after completing 9 months and 16 days of active military service and accruing 9 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

O 5 July 1968 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found the discharge process was proper and equitable in all respects.

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 unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.

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 concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

2.  The Board carefully examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. 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.  By misconduct and poor duty performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

3.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director