MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  9 February 2000                
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026379

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. 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:  In effect, reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) which was denied by the Board on 
4 October 1972.  Since records reflecting the Board’s consideration at that time are no longer available, it is impossible to determine if the evidence and arguments now presented are new and different.  Therefore, the case is reviewed de novo.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that he was young and unjustly separated with a UD because he left his unit to go visit a pregnant girl friend and missed bed check.

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

That on 30 April 1962, at age 17, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 
3 years.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 940.00 (Food Service Helper) and MOS 620.00 (Engineer Equipment Maintenance Assistant). On 21 September 1962, he was assigned to Germany.

On 12 January 1963, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) on 30 December 1962.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of pay and restriction to his unit area.

On 20 March 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL on 
17 March 1963.  His punishment included 14 days extra duty.

On 1 April 1963, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 
22 and on 26 March 1963.  His sentence included restriction to his unit area and forfeiture of pay.  

On 25 April 1963, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have no mental disease. There was no abnormal thinking or behavior suggesting psychosis.  He was considered mentally responsible for his acts.  He was also found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 

On 12 August 1963, the applicant was found guilty by a third summary court-martial of being AWOL from his unit on 10 August 1963.  His sentence included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 
30 days (suspended) and forfeiture of pay.

On 20 September 1963, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL, for breaking restrictions and for failure to obey a lawful order on 13 October 1963.  His punishment included restriction to his unit area.

On an unknown date the applicant was notified that a board of officers would meet to determine his suitability for retention or discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.

On 14 October 1963, the applicant waived his rights to have his case heard before a board of officers.  He also acknowledged that he could receive a UD and declined further legal counsel.

On 30 October 1963, the applicant underwent a second mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 

Additional evidence of record indicates that the applicant was constantly in trouble for violation of military rules and regulations.  He was assigned to three different platoons and received extensive counseling and he was told, in detail, what was expected of him.  However, all rehabilitative efforts failed. 

The entire discharge proceedings are not now a matter of record.  However, he personally signed his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  On 16 December 1963, the applicant was separated from the service with a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 5 days of active military service and he had 12 days lost time.

On 7 December 1971, 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 the elimination of enlisted personnel.  This regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further service by reason of unfitness, involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  A UD was normally considered appropriate.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, 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 applicant’s administrative separation was apparently accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He personally signed his separation documents.

3.  The applicant was discharged after he committed multiple offenses of misconduct.  He also received extensive counseling as to what was expected of him as a soldier.

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

5.  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 he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

6.  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	AR1999026379	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19631216	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.