MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            9 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024137

	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.

	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mrs. Carol Jo Suiter		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 1958 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the reason for his discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.”

APPLICANT STATES:  He was only 19 years old at the time and away from home for the first time and homesick.  He notes that he was in a strange country “with lots of rules [he] was not accustomed to.”  He states that he only missed bed check a couple of times and that he was “not treated fairly by” his commanding officer.  He indicates that under today’s standards he would not have “received the type of discharge” he did.  The applicant concludes that he has been a “father and working citizen for the past 40 years” and believes that he has “been a good citizen since discharge.”  The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty on 12 February 1957 with a GT score of 107.  By August 1957 he was assigned to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany as a rifleman in the infantry squad.

The applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ on 17 September 1957, 25 September 1957 and 3 October 1957.  Although a specific record of the applicant’s conduct which resulted in the UCMJ actions in not in available records, a summary of the Article 15 actions note he violated Article 36, 92 and 134, and in each case his punishment included several days of restriction.

In November 1957 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for being AWOL from “2400 hrs, 1 Nov 57, until o/a 0045 hrs, 2 Nov 57.”  His punishment included restriction and forfeiture.  On 3 January 1958 he was convicted by a second summary court-martial for being AWOL from “1700 hrs, 
8 Dec 57, until o/a 1820 hrs, 8 Dec 57” and for “wrongfully urinat[ing] on the bed and footlocker of an EM, and on the floor of the room” on 29 November 1957.  His punishment again included restriction and forfeiture of pay.

On 6 January 1958 the applicant was convicted by a third summary court-martial for being AWOL from 2230 hrs, 31 Dec 57 until o/a 1230 hrs, 1 Jan 58” and for breaking restriction.  His punishment included confinement at hard labor for one month and forfeiture of pay.

On 9 January 1958 the applicant was notified that he was to appear before a board of officers to determine his “fitness for further retention in the service” under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed board action and waived his right to counsel and to have witnesses called on his behalf.

A board of officers convened on 10 January 1958.  Members of the applicant’s chain of command testified that the applicant was undependable, lazy, irresponsible, and lacked military courtesy and bearing.  His platoon officer testified that the applicant required “constant supervision, showed no respect towards officers and NCOs, was often seen intoxicated off duty, and had a record showing AWOL and breaking restriction.”  The applicant’s platoon sergeant testified that when he asked the applicant about his “troubles” the applicant “repeatedly said its just one of those things.”  That same platoon sergeant, in a written statement, indicated that the applicant had missed “bed check in Grafenworh, once while on aggressor detail” and that the applicant would not “take care of his equipment, and he will not do his job, unless you have an NCO standing right by his side.”

The board of officers concluded that the applicant gave ”evidence of undesirability within the meaning of the law” and recommended that he be separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and issued an undesirable discharge.  The findings and recommendation of the board of officers was approved on 28 January 1958.  Although a copy of the applicant’s 1958 separation document was not in records available to the Board the applicant reported that he was discharged on 28 February 1958.  He was 19 years old at the time and documents available in the applicant 1958 service records indicate his date of birth was 21 August 1938.

On 6 June 1976 the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for a period of three years.  His enlistment document indicates that he reported his date of birth as 
21 August 1940 and that he had no prior military service.  He was ordered to active duty for the purpose of training on 25 October 1974.  On 5 November 1974, while undergoing basic training, the applicant was referred to medical authorities “with a primary diagnosis of alcohol abuse.”  The evaluating physician noted that the applicant reported that he began drinking at the age of 17 and that prior to entering the service he was drinking alcohol quite heavily.  He reported that “after being in the service he feels that his alcohol habit has been exacerbated by the stress of military life” and claims to drink “a fifth of whiskey per day” and “experienced frightening blackouts in the past.”  The applicant indicated to the evaluating physician that “it would be advantageous to his mental health if he were discharged from the service” and claimed “fraudulent enlistment for many reasons” including that he had been “given an undesirable discharge from the service previously.”  The evaluating physician recommended the applicant be discharged as a result of his alcoholic addiction.  The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty and as a Reservist of the Army on 
18 November 1974.

On 10 January 1976 the applicant enlisted in the California Army National Guard. He reported his date of birth as 21 August 1938 and only indicated that he had prior service in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard between 21 October 1953 and 15 November 1954, had attained the grade of E-3 and was honorably discharged for being underage.  (Note:  There is no evidence in available records to support that service.)  He did not report his 1958 undesirable discharge or his brief service in the USAR, which was also terminated by an administrative separation.

The applicant served as a chaplain’s assistant in the California Army National Guard until 28 July 1977 when he was discharged for the purpose of transferring to the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.  He remained in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, as a chaplain’s assistant, until he was honorably discharged in pay grade E-5 on 28 July 1979, at the conclusion of his enlistment contract.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time of the applicant 1958 separation set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for repeated petty offenses/frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Today, Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 provides for the separation of enlisted soldiers for a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate although the separation authority can direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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 applicant's 1958 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The Board notes that contrary to the applicant’s contention he did not merely miss bed check a few times.  His repeated acts of misconduct in the span of just a few months, which resulted in conviction by three summary courts-martial and three UCMJ actions, clearly warranted the undesirable discharge he received.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention that under current standards he would not have received an undesirable discharge the Board notes that Army Regulations still provide for an undesirable discharge for individuals who are separated for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his post 1958 conduct should serve as a basis for upgrading his undesirable discharge is without foundation.  The Board notes that the applicant’s military service subsequent to his 1958 discharge was based entirely on fraud.  Not only did he conceal his 1958 undesirable discharge from his 1974 USAR and 1976 Army National Guard enlistments, he also concealed his 1974 discharge for alcoholism when he enlisted in the Army National Guard in 1976.  In spite of the different dates of birth reported by the applicant on his various enlistment documents he was clearly well over the age of 30 at the time he lied about his prior military service in 1974 and 1976.  The Board is not willing to excuse such behavior, or deem it the kind of behavior that should be viewed with leniency.

4.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

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

___rvo_  ____dsj_  ___cjs_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024137	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(deny)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.189	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.