MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           26 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200042742

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was never informed of the reason he was being discharged.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant’s contention in conjunction with his official military records substantially reflects that probative facts are needed for an equitable review.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are presumed lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  The limited information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

The available evidence shows that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 
7 January 1954.  

His records do not contain the facts and circumstances or the board action surrounding the discharge process.  However, his records do contain a copy of 
Special Orders Number 101, United States Army Transfer Station, Fort Lewis, Washington, dated 23 May 1957, which shows that on 24 May 1957 the applicant was to be discharged as a result of board action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, with an undesirable discharge (UD).  He was to be discharged with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of SPD 382, unfitness, demonstrates behavior or participates in activities or associations which show unreliability.  

On 8 September 1986, the National Personnel Records Center appears to have erroneously issued the applicant an NA Form 13038 (United States of America Certification of Military Service) that shows his service between 7 January 
1954-24 May 1957 was honorable.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for administrative separation for unfitness.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgement of the commander, it was clearly established that the individual demonstrated undesirable habits and traits of character.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally issued.

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 this requirement.

2.  The available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness by demonstrating behavior or participating in activities or associations which showed unreliability.  Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, an available separation order shows that he was separated as a result of board action. Therefore, he would have been afforded the opportunity to present his case before a board of officers.  He would have consulted with defense counsel and counsel would have represented him or he would have voluntarily signed a statement indicating that he did not desire legal representation.  He also would have been informed of the charges against him.  Further, he would have been informed that he could receive a UD and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence to establish a reason for granting an upgrade of his discharge.

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

__mmd__  __aao___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042742	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001026	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.