MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:          16 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000043266

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Ms. Martha E. Schuler		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was a young, 17 year old when he entered the service and planned to make a career of the Army.  He admits that he had never been in the South and that’s where his problems began.  He claims that he was given “6 months and 2/3rds” of his pay.  He was then returned back to duty, only to find out that he was to be given a discharge instead.  In support of his case, he submits a detailed explanation for his actions. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 18 January 1957. 

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 Order Number 239, United States Army Transfer Station, Fort McClellan, Alabama, dated 26 November 1958.  It shows that he was 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 488, unfitness, undesirable habits or traits of character.  He had completed a total of 1 year and 8 months and 10 days of active military service, with the rank of private, pay grade E-1.

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 procedures and authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD 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 this requirement.

2.  The available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness because of undesirable habits or traits of character.  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.  The Board accepts the applicant’s contention that he was young at the time of enlistment, with an apparent lack of maturity.  Further, his good post service conduct and actions are commendable.  However, none of these factors overcome the serious nature of his discharge and his apparent disregard for military authority. Therefore, are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

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

___wtm__  ___mes _  ____jea__  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W.S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043266	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001116	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19581126	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	A	
2.	A	
3.	A	
4.		
5.		
6.		

He submits a detailed explanation for his actions and his employment history.