MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-10704

	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 was young and did not understand what the discharge meant; and that he is now disabled and in need of medical benefits.

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

On 21 February 1963 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years at the age of 17.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 131.00 (Armor Crewman) and assigned to overseas duty in Korea for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition.  However, the record does contain an extensive history of disciplinary infractions including the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions; in addition, he was tried and convicted once by a summary court-martial, and twice by special court-martial.

On 2 October 1963 the applicant accepted an NJP for being observed without an authorized pass for which he was punished with 14 days of extra duty.  On 
24 January 1964 he accepted another NJP for disobeying a lawful order for which he was restricted for 14 days and forfeited $25.00 of pay.

On 4 February 1964 the applicant was tried and convicted by summary court-martial of violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ by breaking restriction.  His sentence included a reduction in rank to private/E-1, to perform hard labor for 
30 days, to forfeit $55.00, and to be restricted for 30 days.

On 24 February 1964 the applicant underwent a trial by special court-martial for violation of 121 of the UCMJ by wrongfully appropriating a quarter ton truck.  He was found guilty and sentenced to forfeit $60.00 per month for 3 months; to hard labor without confinement for 30 days; and restriction for 75 days.

On 16 December 1964 the applicant was again tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ for being AWOL from 19 October to 
23 November 1964.  His sentence included 6 months confinement at hard labor; reduction in rank to private/E-1; and forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 6 months.

On 16 February 1965 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 being categorized unrestorable by the post stockade evaluation board; his flat  refusal to fulfill his military obligations, rather than any apparent inability to do so; and his disciplinary history as outlined above as the reasons for the elimination action. 

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 2 March 1965 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed he be issued a UD.  Accordingly, on 12 March 1965 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 29 days of active military service, and accruing 144 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 noted the applicant’s contention that he was young and did not understand what the discharge meant; and that he is now disabled and in need of medical benefits.  However, while the Board is empathetic with the applicant's medical problems and took cognizance of the applicant’s age, neither factor is sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director