MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044050

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		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 general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was 22 years old at the time when he was inducted in the Army, his father was very ill and was dying.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) because he wanted to be with his father in his final days.
He further states in effect, that under the circumstances he feels that his discharge should be upgraded.  The applicant submits a copy of his father’s 
death certificate in support of his application.

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

On 18 January 1962, the applicant was inducted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 112 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 15 January 1963, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 June to 11 December 1962.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, a reduction to pay grade 
E-1 and a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 4 months.  

On 8 February 1963, a medical examination found the applicant qualified for separation.

On 28 February 1963, the unexecuted portion of the confinement was suspended.

On 5 December 1963, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist who diagnosed him as having a character disorder manifested through illegal absences.  He had no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 11 December 1963, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 5 October to 10 November 1963.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for
6 months and to be reduced to the lowest enlisted pay grade.

On 12 December 1963, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability with a General Discharge.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s inability to adapt to the military way of life and actions that indicated that he could be rehabilitated.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the 

rights available to him.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

On 19 December 1963, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

On 20 December 1963, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months were remitted, effective the date of the applicant’s administrative discharge.

On 10 January 1964, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, unsuitability, character behavior disorder, with a general discharge.  He had completed 11 months and 25 days of creditable active service and had 365 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-209 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  That regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member with a character or behavior disorder, disorder of intelligence, or
transient personality disorder due to acute or special stress and was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and or become a satisfactory soldier, would be discharged for unsuitability.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant’s commander was aware of his personal problems.  The applicant was 23 years old at the time of his first AWOL.  His record also shows that upon his return to duty he could not explain his reasons for going AWOL.

4.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant’s personal problems are not 
sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

__aao___  __mhm___  __tfb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044050	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000926	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640110	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.