MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 November 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11305

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since his discharge he has experienced a great many problems which limit his existence as a viable citizen.  He realizes his error while serving in the military and has made steps to correct his problem of alcoholism.  He further states that he is presently homeless because he cannot obtain a good job to support his household.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 11 January 1961 for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was assigned to the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to obey lawful orders on 3 occasions between 9 January 1962 and 31 October 1962.  The punishment for the first offense was 7 days extra duty.  He received 14 days extra duty for the second and third offenses.

During February and March 1962 the applicant was convicted on 2 occasions by summary court-martial of failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty (2 specifications), and of AWOL (2 specifications, each less than 1 day).  He was sentenced to forfeitures of pay, confinement at hard labor, and reduction in grade.

On 15 November 1962 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of robbery.  He was sentenced to 3 months hard labor without confinement, a forfeiture of $25.00 per month for 3 months, and reduction to private (E-1).

On 8 January 1963 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having an inadequate personality, manifested by the inability to profit by discipline, incorrect attitudes, inefficiency and general poor work performance.  He further stated that the applicant had a character and behavior disorder which was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, training, transfer to another station or organization or reclassification to another type of duty.  He had the mental capacity to understand the nature of any board proceedings necessary and was able to cooperate in his own defense.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be expeditiously separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 or 209.

On 23 January 1963 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness based on undesirable habits and traits of character.  The commander cited the applicant’s disciplinary record as a basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation.  He waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, did not desire counsel, and did not desire to make a written statement or call witnesses in his own behalf.

On 6 March 1963 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 March 1963.  He completed 2 years, 2 months and 4 days of creditable active service and had 11 days lost time.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge on 29 April 1966, and again on 19 October 1978.  The ADRB found that the applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant relief and denied both appeals.

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 that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, serves as the current authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for acts or patterns of misconduct involving discreditable involvement with military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  It states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for discharge under this chapter.

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 of the facts of the case.

3.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant’s personal problems resulting from his misconduct are not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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

___JEV__  ___JNS__  ___RVO__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director