MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036611

	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		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his service deteriorated rapidly following the plane crash he was in due to his emotional state.  Until his ordeal, he had excellent efficiency ratings.  Afterwards, he could not function as a soldier although he desperately tried to.  Supporting evidence is listed on the DD Form 149; however, the personal affidavit and character references are not included.  The medical documentation consists of his enlistment and separation physical examinations.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no additional contention.

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

On 28 January 1954, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 525.10 (Fire Fighter).

On 15 August 1955, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of violating a lawful general regulation by entering an off limits area, by failing to obey a lawful order given by a sentinel, and by wrongfully using foul and insulting language towards a sentinel.  He was sentenced to forfeit $50.00 pay for             3 months and to be restricted for 30 days.

A Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper article dated 19 November 1955 reported that the applicant was a survivor in the plane crash that killed 27 soldiers the day previously.

On 9 May 1956, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being drunk and disorderly in a public place.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 1 month and to forfeit $60.00 pay for 3 months.

On 28 July 1956, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to repair.

On 1 August 1956, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of violating a lawful regulation by entering Mexico without a valid pass.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 4 months and to forfeit $65.00 pay for 6 months.

On 21 August 1956, the applicant was referred for a psychiatric evaluation due to his apathy and inability to expend an effort to adhere to disciplinary control.  The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant had had about five civilian arrests prior to enlisting – on two occasions for robbery and on two occasions for being drunk and disorderly.  The applicant’s explanation of his present difficulties was that he was fed up with restriction.  He stated he got drunk every time he went drinking and that he got wild whenever he got drunk.  He stated that he was not going back to duty, no matter what.  He was diagnosed with a pathological personality type but that he was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

On 10 September 1956, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  On  25 September 1956, a board of officers was convened to consider the applicant’s unfitness for further military service.  The applicant appeared but desired to remain silent.  

On 25 September 1956, the board recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On      4 October 1956, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 9 October 1956, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 12 October 1956, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months and 3 days of creditable active service and had 73 days of lost time.  The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24) shows his conduct and efficiency was rated as “excellent” until the period 2 March through 26 October 1955, when his conduct was rated as good and his efficiency as excellent.  His next rated period, from 7 January through 31 May 1956, rated his conduct as good.  His efficiency was not rated.  His last rated period, from 1 June through 12 October 1956, rated his conduct and efficiency as unsatisfactory.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

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 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.

2.  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.

3.  The Board disagrees with the applicant’s contention that his service deteriorated rapidly following the plane crash.  While the Board is sympathetic with his plane crash experience, the Board notes that his misconduct started before the crash and there is evidence to show this type of behavior was the norm even before he enlisted.  While he may have had all “excellent” efficiency ratings before the crash, he did not have all “excellent” conduct ratings before the crash. 

4.  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

__mdm___  __js____  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036611	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000810	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19561012	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.