MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            2 September 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999017221

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 12 September 1962 as an administrative specialist.

Beginning in June 1963, the applicant began receiving several nonjudical punishments (NJP) for instances of failure to report to his appointed place of duty, AWOL (27 days), failure to be at his appointed place of duty, willful and wrongful damage of government property and larceny.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 12 August 1964 for being AWOL from 7 June 1964 to 16 July 1964 (39 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 23 October 1964, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness (an establish pattern for shirking).  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 1 year, 8 months and 2 days of creditable service and had 163 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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. Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral
trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

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

MKP____  TNK_____  JMA____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999017221	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990902	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19641023	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.