MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           9 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026430

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard Jr.		Member	
	Ms. 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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That due to his emotional and physical condition at the time, and after going through the chain of command on several occasions, he was told by the chaplain and company commander that he would be released with a general discharge.  But on the day of his departure, he was handed a “208” or undesirable discharge.

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

He enlisted on 25 May 1964 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky.  In June 1965, he was reassigned overseas to Korea.

While undergoing advanced individual training, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, three times:  on 28 September 1964 for missing bed check; on 1 October 1964 for failure to report to extra duty; and on 30 October 1964 for disobeying a lawful order.

On 7 December 1964, the applicant was tried by summary court-martial and found guilty of disobeying a lawful order from an NCO.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days (suspended for 2 months), restriction to the company area for 30 days, forfeiture of $35.00, and reduction to private E-1.

On 23 January 1965, the applicant was administered NJP for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 2 February 1965, the applicant was again tried by summary court-martial and found guilty of breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $52.00.

While serving in Korea, he was administered NJP twice:  on 13 November 1965 for AWOL from 8 November to 9 November 1965; and on 7 March 1966 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

A 19 May 1966 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 2, indicating no physical or mental limitations for duty.  In the report of medical history the applicant furnished for the examination, he stated, “I think that I am in good health.”  A report of mental status evaluation determined that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and he met the medical standards for retention in the Army.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that he was discharged on 1 July 1966 for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had 1 year, 11 months and 27 days of creditable service and 41 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.  It would appear that his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the available facts of the case.

2.  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.

3.  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

__jh____  ___tdh___  __cjs____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026430	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000309	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19660701	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.