MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:                   28 September 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:           AR2000043686

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 REQUEST:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 28 April 1959.  

The applicant’s DD Form 789 (Unit Punishment Record) shows that the applicant committed offenses of missing guard mount, dereliction in his duties, pass violation and misconduct for petty larceny.  His punishment consisted of extra duties and a reduction to the pay grade of E-3.

Between January 1960 and May 1960, the applicant received two summary courts-martial and one special court-martial for instances of leaving his guard post without being properly relieved, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, for being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer, for breaking restriction and for sleeping on guard.  His punishments 
consisted of a forfeiture of pay, confinement and reduction to the pay 
of E-1.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 7 June 1960, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-209, for inaptitude.  He was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  
He had a total of 1 year, 1 month and 10 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 10 June 2000.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations (15 years).  The Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 10 June 2000. 

Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that:  the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.   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.

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:

RVO____  EMW____  DPH____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043686	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000928	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600607	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.