MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            20 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021396

	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:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  Correction of his DD Form 214 to show his character of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

APPLICANT STATES:  That his character of service on his DD Form 214 was amended to show General (Under Honorable Conditions) in 1974.  He also states that he was informed by the National Personnel Records Center that his DD Form 214 was destroyed or lost during the fire of 1973.  He later filed a claim for benefits with the VA and discovered that there was a copy of his DD Form 214; however, it did not reflect his change in his character of service.  He further states that it is cruel and inhumane punishment to continue holding and distributing records that reflect negative and wrongful information.  He concludes
by stating that he feels justified after waiting forty-years to have his records modified to the way they should have been when the board amended his discharge in 1974.

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

The applicant’s military records were destroyed or lost during the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he entered active duty on 17 May 1950 and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 17 May 1953 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 18 May 1953.

Evidence of record shows that he was convicted by two summary courts-martial for instances of AWOL.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, forfeiture of pay and hard labor without confinement for one month.

On 19 September 1958, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 23 September 1958, the applicant’s commander recommended that he appear before a board of officer to determine whether he should be eliminated from the service under the provision of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness prior to his normal expiration term of service (ETS).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s courts-martial, poor conduct and unsatisfactory ratings in his last unit, AWOL (48 days), two reductions for misconduct and that he has been reassigned to nine different units since his date of entry.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case by, and appearance before, an administrative separation board.  He also requested representation by counsel.

On 25 September 1958, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board.  The applicant appeared before the board represented by counsel.  The board recommended that he be discharged from the service because of undesirable habits or traits of character for unfitness and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

The appropriate authority approved the finding and recommendation of the board of officers on 29 September 1958.  The applicant was discharged on 3 October 1958.   He had a total of 8 years, 4 months, and 15 days of creditable service and 48 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his character of service on his DD Form 214 is incorrect; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence to show that he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge or that one was ever granted.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor appear to be 
appropriate considering the available facts of the case

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show tot he 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.

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

EMW____  HOF____  MVT____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021396	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19581003	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
                      1.  110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.