MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            9 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12685

	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.	Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr.	Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes he did his duty to his country and he has been a good citizen since his discharge.

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

The applicant enlisted on 29 May 1962 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 15 October 1962 for duty as a light vehicle driver.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 31 January 1963.

On 10 May 1963 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being drunk and disorderly in a public place and for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant again had NJP imposed against him on 19 August 1963 for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 12 September 1963 NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully and falsely forging with intent to deceive an Armed Forces Liberty Pass.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.

On 14 December 1963 NJP was imposed against the applicant for introducing alcoholic beverages into the company area.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction for 14 days.

The applicant again had NJP imposed against him on 5 May 1964 for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 29 December 1964 of unlawfully entering an operations office, wrongfully appropriating a government vehicle, disobeying a lawful order, and being AWOL on 27 November 1964.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 12 January 1965 and was diagnosed as being above average intelligence, extremely mature, and absent of any evidence of psychosis.  He was cleared for any action deemed appropriate by the chain of command.
On 14 January 1965, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness based on his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities despite efforts to rehabilitate him.

The applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed discharge action and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The chain of command recommended that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions; however, the approving authority approved the recommendation on 22 January 1965 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 5 February 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 14 days of total active service and had 24 days of lost time due to confinement. 

There is no evidence in the available records that shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 that render then unfit for military service.  Separation under this regulation required a medical examination by a physician trained in psychiatry. 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 therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
4.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.  However, his record of undistinguished service and disciplinary record does not warrant further relief.

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

___jh____  ___fe___  ___tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director