MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041478

	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. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That laws have been established to change characters of discharges if in the interest of justice and he desires the Board to consider changing his discharge.  In support of his application he submits copies of his reports of separation (DD Form 214) and the facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center which destroyed millions of service records.  However, the documents submitted by the applicant show:

The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 1946 for a period of 18 months and served until he was honorably discharged in the rank of private on 8 April 1948.

He then enlisted in the Navy on 13 September 1948 and served until he was discharged under honorable conditions on 11 August 1949.

He again enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 February 1950 and received training as a fire control electrician.  

On 13 October 1952, while stationed in Germany, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had been convicted by courts-martial on four separate occasions and had received nonjudicial punishment on six separate occasions.  In addition, the applicant was presently in the stockade for striking a noncommissioned officer.  He also offered that all attempts to rehabilitate the applicant through counseling and job transfers had been futile and that the applicant constantly shirked his duties.

On 21 October 1952 the applicant was ordered to appear before a board of officers on 27 October 1952 to determine if he should be separated from the service for unfitness.  He declined counsel and appeared before the board of officers to represent himself.  Testimony was given to the effect that the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to rehabilitation rendered him unfit for service and made him a disruptive influence in the units he had been assigned to.  The applicant participated in his defense through cross-examination and the board found that he was unfit for further service and recommended that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. 

The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendation of the board of officers on 7 November 1952 and he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 December 1952 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, for unfitness based on habits and traits of character that rendered his retention in the service as undesirable.  He had completed 2 years, 8 months and 19 days of active service during his current enlistment and had 53 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He had a total of 5 years, 1 month and 2 days of total service for pay purposes.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he 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 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  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.  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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate even given the limited information contained in the available records.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  Although the Board does have the authority to change the characterization of discharges when it finds that an error or injustice has occurred.  Such does not appear to be the case in the applicant’s case, especially since he was a prior service soldier (twice) and should have been well aware of the consequences of his actions.  Accordingly, his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to his undistinguished record of service during such a short amount of time.

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 this 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

___eja __  __alr____  ___bfh __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041478	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/31	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1952/12/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00/UNFIT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.