MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026925

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a six-page letter to the Board, that he essentially was mistreated by his sergeant which led to his demise and eventual dismissal from the service.  He admits to receiving two Article 15 punishments, the first one he accepts, but not the second one because it was all the sergeant’s fault who was out to get him.  In support of his request, he submits copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) as exhibit 1, DA Form 24 (Service Record) as exhibits 2 through 5, DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) as exhibits as exhibits 6 and 7.

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

He enlisted on 12 November 1958 and, after training, was assigned to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Although records of nonjudicial punishment proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, are missing from the applicant’s file, the remarks section of his DA Form 24 states, “Enlisted Man reduced for inefficiency and given Article 15 twice.  Cannot be depended upon to perform Military Police duties.  Not eligible for immediate reenlistment.”

The applicant was also given two separate conduct and efficiency ratings of “unsatisfactory” during the period 27 March 1959 to 11 May 1961.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged on 11 May 1961 for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had 2 years, 5 months and 23 days of creditable service and 7 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 facts and circumstances, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge.  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.

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

__rvo___  ___sk____  __le____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026925	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19610511	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.