MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038396

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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:  In effect, that he requested a discharge because of the hardships his family was enduring and he does not believe that the long-term effects of such a discharge was properly explained to him at the time.  He further states that his problems were compounded at the time by the fact that while he was in confinement, all of his pay and allowances were stopped, to include his wife’s allotment, which resulted in her having no place to live.  He also states that he received an honorable discharge for his prior service, that he has lived with his mistakes long enough, that he deserved a better discharge for his service to his country, and that he simply wants to set this portion of his life straight.

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

The applicant enlisted in the National Guard on 20 May 1953 and served until he was discharged with a general discharge on 15 June 1954 and was transferred to the USAR.  He was honorably discharged from the USAR on 18 March 1958, when he volunteered on that date for induction in Louisville, Kentucky.

While undergoing training he was honorably discharged on 18 July 1959, after 4 months and 1 days of active service when he enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 July 1958 for a period of 6 years.  He completed his training and was transferred to Korea on 24 October 1958.

On 21 August 1959 he was convicted of two specifications of black marketing.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months (suspended), a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, and a forfeiture of pay. 

The applicant contracted infectious hepatitis and was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) on 9 December 1959.  He remained at WRAMC until he was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 18 January 1960.

On 24 June 1960 he was convicted by a special court-martial of stealing parts and tools from the vehicles of six soldiers.  He plead guilty and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay. 

On 1 July 1960 the applicant’s commander requested that a psychiatric examination be conducted to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unsuitability.  He indicated that the applicant had served under two different tank commanders and had been counseled by both, as well as his platoon sergeant, platoon leader, executive officer, and commander on many different occasions with little or no improvement shown.  He also indicated that the applicant had requested that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

The examining psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had been an unacceptable soldier largely because of his inability to manage his personal finances and he had intended to eventually sell the items he had stolen to pay his debts.  The applicant indicated that he wanted out of the Army and if sent back to his unit he would do something to be put back in the stockade again.  The psychiatrist opined that further attempts to rehabilitate him would not prove fruitful.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant.  It shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 August 1960 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 11 months, and 5 days of active service during his current enlistment and had 53 days of lost time due to confinement 

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness for those individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, given the seriousness of his offenses and his otherwise undistinguished record of service, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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 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

___esc__  ___jps __  ___mkp__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038396	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1960/08/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208/UNFIT	
DISCHARGE REASON	592	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  592	144.5100/A51.00/UNFITNESS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.