MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035422

	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. Carl W. S. Chun
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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:  That his offense (possession of marijuana) was considered a minor offense shortly after his discharge and he was never informed that he could apply for reconsideration.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years on 11 January 1954 and, after training, was assigned to Korea.

While in Korea, the applicant was apprehended by military police for possession and use of marijuana.  On 5 April 1955, the applicant’s company commander recommended that he be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.  The applicant appeared before a board of officers on 25 April 1955, at which time the board supported the company commander’s recommendation.  The separation authority, a major general, approved the findings and recommendations of the board and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was returned to the United States and discharged on 27 May 1955 at Fort Lewis, Washington.  He had 1 year, 4 months and 15 days of creditable service and 2 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL).

Army Regulation 615-368, 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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the 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

__tsk____  __sk____  __jhk____  DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035422	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000725	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19550527	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	A53.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.