MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            12 September 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000044084

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he feels that his discharge should have been honorable.  He also states that he has two other DD Forms 214 with “honorable” on them.  In support of his application, he submits copies of three DD Forms 214.

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

The applicant initially entered active duty on 28 July 1948.  He completed training as a postal specialist and served in Japan, Korea, and Germany.  He reenlisted twice and was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E 6 in April 1957.  The applicant was awarded the Good Conduct Medal with bronze clasp and 2 loops, the Army of Occupation Medal with Japan clasp, the National Defense Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal and the United Nations Service Medal.

On 20 September 1960, the unit commander requested that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 624-200, paragraph 28b, for inefficiency.  On 18 October 1960, the applicant appealed the reduction; however, the commanding general determined that the reduction was justified and denied the appeal.  As a result, the applicant was reduced from sergeant first class (SFC)/E-6 to private (PVT)/E-2.  He later was transferred to the division mental hygiene clinic as a clerk typist.

The applicant’s personnel records contain a DD Form 789 (Unit Punishment Record) which shows he received four nonjudicial punishments during the period December 1960 through May 1961 for missing reveille formation, being absent from his unit, missing bed check and bed check formation.  His punishments consisted of restriction, extra duty and reduction in grade.

In December 1961, the applicant’s unit commander imposed another nonjudicial punishment upon the applicant for being absent from his unit.  He was reduced from the temporary grade of private first class (PFC) to the permanent grade of private/E-2.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 5 January 1962 and was found qualified for separation.

On 9 January 1962, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which determined that there was no evidence of delusional thinking and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had periodically been absent from duty since assigned to the mental hygiene clinic and these absences had been related to excessive drinking.  Further, he recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. 

On 8 February 1962, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for undesirable habits and traits of character with an undesirable discharge.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing by a board of officers and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 21 February 1962, the approving authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 8 March 1962.  He had 4 years, 10 months and 14 days on his current enlistment and a total of 13 years, 5 months and 4 days of active federal service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant's service prior to the period in question; however, in view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his GD was too severe.

4.  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.

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

CMF____  FE______  CJS____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044084	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620308	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.