MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           9 December 1999                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021665

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions  (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that after testifying in behalf of his co-defendant, at his court-martial, he was given a discharge UOTHC.  He further states, that there were political overtones, and pressure from the German Government.  

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

On 21 November 1963, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  His military occupational specialty 91B10 (Medical Specialist). 

On 8 September 1964, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order and for being disrespectful.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $23 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 14 September 1964, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for breaking restriction.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50 pay, a reduction to pay grade E-2 and to be placed in correctional custody for a period of 10 days.

On 27 September 1964, the applicant’s record indicated that a day after being released from correctional custody the applicant became drunk and knocked out several windows within the company area.  On 16 January 1965, the applicant again became drunk and broke four automobile radio antennas for which he assumed full responsibility and on 23 January 1965, the applicant disobeyed a lawful order.  The applicant’s record does not show that he was punished for any of the offenses.  The applicant’s record also indicated that he was counseled on numerous occasions about his poor duty performance.  There is no indication in his military records, which shows that he made an effort to improve his duty performance. 

On 14 April 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being disorderly in a public place and for the destruction of private property.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-2 and a forfeiture of$55.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 2 August 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for assault a German National and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 to 4 July 1965.  He was sentenced to confinement with hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $20.00 pay per month for 3 months.

On 18 August 1965, a mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 5 October 1965, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  

On 19 October 1965, the commanding general approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 2 November 1965, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 
1 year, 7 months and 23 days of creditable active service and 109 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all 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

___jhl __  __tdh ___  __jps ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022665	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19651102	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	 A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.