MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            11 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039140

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 his discharge should be upgraded because of his past service in the Oklahoma National Guard and his record in law enforcement with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.  He also states that his discharge should be upgraded based on his service to service organizations (VFW and DAV) where he performs funeral details for deceased veterans.

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

He enlisted in Little Rock, Arkansas on 5 August 1964 for a period  of 3 years and assignment to Europe.  He was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana to undergo his training and while undergoing his advanced individual training (AIT) nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on 13 November 1964 for being AWOL from 12 November to 13 November 1964.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 18 December 1964 for duty as a light weapons infantryman.

During the period of 17 February 1965 to 29 May 1966 NJP was imposed against the applicant on at least four separate occasions for offenses ranging from AWOL, disobeying a lawful order from his squad leader, being absent from his place of duty, and being off-post without a pass. 

On 27 April 1965 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failure to go to his place of duty.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric evaluation on 18 October 1965 and the examining psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had stated that he wanted out of the Army.  The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had no psychiatric disease, that he was not amenable to rehabilitation, and recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 15 November 1965 of being AWOL from 18 September to 27 September 1965.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.  The convening authority remitted that portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor.

On 10 February 1966 the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  The applicant waived his rights to appear before a board of officers.
On 14 February 1966 the commander submitted the recommendation for separation of the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  He cited as the basis for the recommendation the numerous unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the applicant, his frequent breaches of conduct, his disciplinary record, his untrustworthiness, and his lack of regard for the rights of others.  He also submitted statements from five other members of the chain of command, which related to the applicant’s unfitness for further service.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 6 June 1966 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 September 1966 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with authorities.  He had served 1 year, 7 months, and 22 days of total active service and had 180 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. 

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 25 June 1968 for an upgrade of his discharge based on his desire to obtain a decent job.  After reviewing the available evidence the ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 30 August 1968.

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 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

4.  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. 

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

___cjp __  __ja ____  __rvo ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039140	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1966/09/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208/UNFIT	
DISCHARGE REASON	592	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  592	144.5100/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.