MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             12 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000044616

	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. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Carol J. 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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it has been 36 years since his discharge and he has regretted his actions for which he has paid dearly.  He also states that he loves his country, would serve again if he could and that he is involved with several Veterans Service organizations.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214, a personal statement and one character reference.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 15 June 1962 as an armor crewman. 

Between April 1963 and December 1964, the applicant received nine nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and two summary courts-martial for several instances of failure to be at his appointed place of duty, for violation of a general order, for failure to repair, for being absent from his appointed place of duty, for breaking restriction, for being drunk on duty and for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishments consisted of forfeitures of pay, confinement, restriction, extra duty and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 20 October 1964, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s complete disregard for established authority and his constant failure to repair.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He also waived representation by counsel and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.

On 23 December 1964, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 30 December 1964.  He had a total of 2 years and 9 days of creditable service and had 187 days of lost time due to 
confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 12 January 1967.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 12 July 1967.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness (misconduct).  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgement of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge 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.  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.  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:

JDM____  JED_____  CJS_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044616	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001012	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19641230	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.