MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            20 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028264

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was newly married and 20 years of age at the time he enlisted.  He goes on to state that he completed his training and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington where his wife joined him shortly after his arrival.  He continues by stating that everything was good until his wife’s father died and he was given emergency leave to take her to Las Vegas, Nevada in November 1957.  He then returned to Fort Lewis and around April or May 1958 one of his friends took leave and went to Las Vegas and had an affair with his wife.  He then received phone calls and letters from family members informing him of the situation and he panicked and went AWOL to straighten the matter out.  He continues by stating that he stayed with his wife for 25 days and had to hitchhike back to Fort Lewis.  By the time he returned he had been AWOL for 31 days and was reported as a deserter.  As a result, he was court-martialed and received 6-months probation, company punishment, and a forfeiture of 2/3 of his pay.  A couple of months later he discussed the hardships he was experiencing with his wife and was told that he could get a discharge; however, he did not realize that it would be a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He contends that given his extenuating circumstances his discharge should be upgraded. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel records Center at St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records.  However, his reconstructed records contain a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows:

The applicant enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 3 April 1957 for a period of 2 years.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for duty as a light weapons infantryman.

Although the facts and circumstances are not present in the available records, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 October 1958 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, based on habits and character traits that rendered his retention unsuitable for further rehabilitation or further service.  He had served 1 year and 23 days of total active service and had 175 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character.  It provided, in pertinent part for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  A board of officers was required to be convened to determine if an individual should be retained or separated from the service and the individual concerned was afforded representation by counsel and the opportunity to present matters in their own defense.  An undesirable discharge 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, it is concluded:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the administrative separation proceedings were accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and are not supported by the evidence of record.  While the Board cannot determine the extent of his misconduct, the available evidence clearly shows that he had 175 days of lost time (over 5 months) which is significantly more than the 31 days the applicant claims he was AWOL.  Therefore, his contentions are not sufficient to mitigate relief when compared to his extensive amount of lost time over a short period of time and his overall undistinguished record of service.

4.  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.

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

___be___  ___rgh__  ___gg ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028264	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1958/10/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	583/UNFITNESS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583 	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.