MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021043

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 the punishment he received was for comparatively minor offenses; that he has suffered the effects of his discharge for over 40 years; that he was unfairly given a summary court-martial for missing a formation; that his performance of duty was good; that he feels verbal reprimands would have been sufficient for his minor misconduct, which included missing bed check a few times, missing a formation, and talking back to an acting  noncommissioned officer (NCO); that he got hooked on alcohol which contributed to his problems; and that he has suffered for over 40 years because of his minor misconduct which could have been attributed to his immaturity, irresponsibility, and abuse of alcohol.  The applicant enclosed six letters in support of his application, from his supervisors, his landlord, and friends, which attest to his good character.

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

On 9 February 1955 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 4 years at the age of 18.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and advanced individual training (AIT) at Lee, Virginia.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 550.00 (Supply Handler) and was assigned to overseas duty in Germany 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 five separate occasions; in addition, he was tried and convicted by summary court-martial on three separate occasions.  

On 13 July 1955, the applicant was tried and convicted by summary court-martial of violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ for being AWOL from 2300 hours, 11 July to 0030 hours, 12 July 1955.  His sentence included a forfeiture of $35.00.

On 23 June 1956, the applicant accepted an NJP for destruction of government property for which he was punished with 14 days of extra duty.  On 2 July 1956, he accepted another NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty for which he was reduced to the grade of private/E-2.

On 10 January 1957, he was again tried and convicted by summary court-martial of violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ for disorderly conduct.  His sentence for this offense was a forfeiture of $55.00.

On 4 March 1957, he accepted an NJP for missing bed check which resulted in a punishment of 14 days of extra duty.  On 22 April 1957, he accepted an NJP for missing reveille formation.  His punishment for this offense was 14 days of extra duty.  On 10 May 1957, he accepted his last NJP for being drunk and disorderly; this again resulted in a punishment of 14 days of extra duty.

On 2 July 1957, he tried and convicted by summary court-martial a third time, this one for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ for being AWOL for missing reveille formation on 25 June 1957.  His sentence included hard labor without confinement for 20 days; and a forfeiture of 65.00.

On 20 August 1957, the applicant’s unit commander requested that an administrative separation board of Officers (ASB) be convened to determine if the applicant should be discharged prior to his expiration of term of service (ETS).  The unit commander cited the record of court-martial and NJP’s as the basis for taking the action; in addition, he commented that the applicant had been counseled several times to no avail, and his actions in the unit affirm that he had no intention of being a satisfactory soldier.  

On 29 August 1957, an ASB convened, with the applicant and his counsel present, to consider the case.  After carefully considering all the evidence the ASB found that the applicant was unfit and determined that his further service would be undesirable.  The ASB recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service because of undesirable habits and traits of character and that he be issued a DD Form 258A (UD).  On 16 September 1957, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the ASB.  Accordingly, on 4 October 1957, the applicant was separated with a UD.  At the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 2 years, 7 months, and 26 days of active military service.

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge within the 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.  After carefully considering the contentions of the applicant that, in effect, the punishment he received was for comparatively minor offenses; that he has suffered the effects of his discharge for over 40 years; that he was unfairly given a summary court-martial for missing a formation; that his performance of duty was good; that he feels verbal reprimands would have been sufficient for his minor misconduct; that he got hooked on alcohol which contributed to his problems; and that he has suffered for over 40 years because of his minor misconduct which could have been attributed to his immaturity, irresponsibility, and abuse of alcohol.  However, the Board determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  Further, the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment, and he failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  While the Board is empathetic, the passage of time alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of a discharge.  

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated his misconduct. 

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

___rvo __  __ja ____  __mw ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021043	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/08/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1957/10/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A54.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.  807	144.9217/A92.17	
3.  811	144.9221/A92.21	
4.		
5.		
6.