MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  26 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000038863

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Baxter		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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:  Upgrade of his Undesirable Discharge (UD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That his UD was based on two alleged misconducts involving special courts-martial, both of which found him not guilty.  A third was dropped for lack of evidence.  He received a meritorious unit commendation on 19 April 1954 while serving in the combat zone in Korea from October 1953 to December 1954.  He was not in the stockade at any time and was never AWOL.  In 1955, he requested an upgrade of his UD with letters of recommendation as required and his request was denied because it was too soon.

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

That he was inducted in the Army of the United States on 22 April 1953.  After completing training, he was assigned as a heavy vehicle driver to a transportation truck company in Korea on 2 November 1953.  He was advanced to a Private, pay grade E-2, on 22 August 1953.

Between 21 October 1953 and 26 October 1954, the applicant was given 
three company level punishments and three summary court-martials for misconduct.  He also had two special court-martials which found him not guilty of their charges.  A summary of these discipline actions is as follows:

On 21 October 1953, while aboard ship in route to Korea, the applicant was given a summary court-martial for three specifications; two counts of disobeying a noncommissioned officer, and one count of “disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer.”  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $30.

On 26 April 1954, the applicant was given company punishment of 
14 days extra duty for failing to a obey an order to shave.

On 8 June 1954, the applicant was given a summary court-martial for wrongfully having in his possession a bottle of intoxicating liquor.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $30 and hard labor for 10 days.

On 12 July 1954, the applicant was given a special court-martial for being drunk on guard duty.  He plead not guilty and was found not guilty.

On 15 July 1954, the applicant was given a summary court-martial for violating a general order by operating his vehicle at a speed of 40 miles per hour in a posted 25 miles per hour zone.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $60 and hard labor for 15 days.

On 11 August 1954, the applicant was given company punishment of 
3 days extra duty for speeding.

On 20 September 1954, the applicant was given a company reprimand for being intoxicated.

On 26 October 1954, the applicant was given a special court-martial for attempting to steal a case of shortening, of a value of about $6.90, the property of the United States Government.  He plead not guilty and was found not guilty.

On 9 November 1954, the applicant was reviewed by a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged because of unfitness.  The board considered the applicant’s military record and heard the personal testimony of the applicant and two witnesses in his favor.  The board also heard the testimony against the applicant from his company commander, platoon leader, motor officer, and another First Lieutenant.  In light of the applicant’s record of misconduct (three company punishments and three summary court-martials) and the testimonies against him concerning his unacceptable conduct and his attitude toward authority and soldiering, the board recommended that the applicant be given an UD according to Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness due to evidence of traits of character which render retention in the service undesirable.  He was so discharged on 6 January 1955 with 1 year, 8 months, 15 days service.

On 9 January 1956, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his UD.  He included with his request, four character reference statements from civilian employers and acquaintances.  The ADRB found that the applicant had been properly discharged and denied the request for a discharge upgrade.  The applicant was sent a letter on 25 April 1956 notifying him of the ADRB’s decision.

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 was given an undesirable discharge for unfitness due to undesirable character traits.  The applicant’s military record, personal testimony, testimony of witnesses in his favor, and testimony of his supervisors, were reviewed by a board of officers.  They concluded that there was sufficient evidence of traits of character which rendered retention of the applicant in the service as undesirable.  The three company punishments and the three summary court-martials were part of the basis for the board’s decision.  The applicant was not discharged because of other special court-martial charges of which he was found not guilty.
2.  The applicant’s request for discharge upgrade made in 1955 was considered by the ADRB which found that the discharge was proper.  The ADRB also considered the character reference testimonies submitted by the applicant but did not find them sufficient to overcome his record of misconduct in the Army.  
As such, there was no basis for upgrade of the applicant’s UD.  The applicant was notified of their decision.

3.  The applicant’s UD is both correct and just based on the circumstances.

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

__ao___  __tb______  __mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038863	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000926	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144	Administrative Discharge	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.