MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  18 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021012

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Mr. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Mr. James Anderholm		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 (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that due to his age and level of maturity, he was unable to withstand the pressures of the military.  Therefore, he would depart his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.

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

On 14 February 1963, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years at age 19.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 155.00 (Sound Ranging Crewman).

The available records show that on 24 September 1963, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 30 July-12 August 1963.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and performance of hard labor without confinement.  

On 31 July 1964, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 9 - 24 November 1963 and from 11 December-
22 June 1964.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 

OSA Form 172 (Army Discharge Review Board Case Report and Directive) shows that on 24 July 1964, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by a professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have an emotional instability reaction, chronic to moderate, manifested by impulsiveness, poor judgement, lack of motivation, and an inability to tolerate anxiety.  These conditions were determined to have existed prior to service.  He could distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  The recommendation was that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

On 10 August 1964, the applicant's commander recommended elimination for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  On 10 August 
1964, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers; he also waived representation by counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 18 August 1964, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  

On 26 August 1964, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness with a UD.  He had completed 9 months and 
5 days of active military service and he had 283 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.  

On 11 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for administrative separation for unfitness (misconduct).  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgement of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally issued.

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 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.

2.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young, however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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

EJO_____  JLP_____  JEA_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021012	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991118	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.