MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041568

	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	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner 		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:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he enlisted in the Army to serve his country in the Airborne Corps; that he completed his basic and advanced training; that after assignment to Germany, he was harassed by his unit leaders; that he was constantly punished in an arbitrary and capricious manner by these leaders; that he was a good soldier; and that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth, immaturity, and misconduct.  He further states that since discharge he has been a model citizen; that he is married with two children; that he has obtained two vocational skills; and that he is a member of several civic organizations.  The applicant submitted a statement in support of his application.

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

On 19 November 1958, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
120 (Pioneer).

On 30 May 1959, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was sentenced to forfeit $50.00 pay.  On 15 July 1959, the applicant departed Fort Leonard Wood enroute to his permanent assignment in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant served in Germany from 3 September 1959 to 8 September 1960. During his tour in Germany, he accumulated 6 nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, primarily for missing bed checks, was hospitalized for slipping and falling on the ice, was promoted to private first class/E-3, and was reduced to private/E-2.

On 28 July 1960, the applicant acknowledged he had been notified by his commander of his intent to separate him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  The applicant declined a board of officers, legal counsel, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 3 August 1960, the applicant was recommended for separation from the Army with a UD.  The intermediate commander recommended approval of the discharge with a UD.  On 8 September 1960, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of a UD.  Accordingly, on 23 September 1960, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 3 days of his 3-year enlistment and accruing 2 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The Regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members found to be unfit for further military service, and without rehabilitative potential, would be separated.  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 record does not support the applicant’s contentions, and no evidence to support them has been submitted by the applicant to show, that his discharge is inequitable because it was based upon harassment, arbitrary and capricious punishments, or that his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve. 

2.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

4.  The Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and notes the accomplishments outlined in the statement submitted with his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

5.  The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated his misconduct or poor duty performance.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  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.

7.  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

__jph___  __rjw____  __klw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041568	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200001219	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600923	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.9411	
2.	144.9405	
3.	144.9301	
4.	144.9201	
5.	144.9203	
6.