MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 April 2000                           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037078

	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.

	Ms. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was forced out of the service because of a jeep accident.  He was held responsible for the accident and he was told to lose his rank, he lost his rank and was discharged. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from reconstructed personnel records.

On 23 May 1955, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.  His military occupational specialty was 411.10 (Ammunition Storage Specialist). 

Between September 1955 and December 1956, the applicant was convicted by three summary courts-martial of two occasions of failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 to 24 March 1956.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 
30 days and forfeitures.

Between 9 and 28 August 1957, the applicant accepted two nonjudicial punishments, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for speeding and for being AWOL.  The particulars surrounding his punishments are missing from his file.  

On 29 August 1957, a mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 3 September 1957, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness and that he be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s numerous acts of misconduct and action, which indicated that he, could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant waived representation by counsel before a board of officers. 

On 16 September 1957, the applicant appeared before a board of officers and again stated that he did not desire counsel.  The applicant was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, to present evidence in his behalf, to testify in person or submit a written statement.  The applicant submitted a written statement without comment.  The board, after careful consideration of the evidence of record, found the applicant unfit for further retention in the military service because of habits and traits of character that show an incapacity to become a satisfactory soldier and recommended that he be discharged from the service because of unfitness with an undesirable discharge. 
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).  

On 17 October 1957, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months and 17 days of creditable active service and 8 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an 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 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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  There is no evidence nor has the applicant submitted any evidence in support of his allegation.     

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__eb____  __tap___  __klw___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037078	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000427	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19571017	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.