MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036310

	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:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he volunteered for the draft and shortly after arrival at basic training, he and his company commander developed severe problems.  He ended up in the stockade due to a personality conflict and his inability to understand, or ability to carry out, orders.  When he was released from the stockade, his commander allegedly “beat him up” and threw him back in the stockade, threatening to throw him out of the Army with an Undesirable Discharge.  In support of his request, the applicant submits two letters of character reference from his county deputy sheriff and his pastor.

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

He was inducted on 11 August 1964.  He failed to complete basic training due to disciplinary problems.

On 27 August 1964, the applicant was tried by a summary court-martial for failure to obey a lawful order.  He was sentenced to 15 days confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $50.00.

On 9 September 1964, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial for failure to obey a lawful order.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months.  (One previous conviction considered.)

On 9 September 1964, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers. He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 16 October 1964, the separation authority, a major general, approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 30 October 1964 at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He had 15 days of creditable service and 66 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.  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 this 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

__cla____  __wtm___  __tbr ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036310	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000907	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19641030	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.