MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 January 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045488

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That racial issues were involved in his discharge.  Had he been given a chance, he would have been OK.  He provides his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.

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

He was born on 8 January 1941.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on                  17 December 1958.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 140.00 (Field Artillery Basic).

Between May 1959 and March 1960, the applicant was convicted by one special and two summary courts-martial for stealing shirts and a jacket, property of another soldier; failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and being absent from his place of duty and breaking restriction, respectively.

Between June 1959 and March 1960, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three different occasions for failure to repair for reveille; missing work formation; and failure to repair for reveille, respectively.

On 25 February 1960, the applicant received a neuropsychiatric examination.  He was found to possess sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right from wrong and to adhere to the right and refrain from the wrong and to be mentally responsible for his acts. 

On 25 March 1960, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness -- frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, an established pattern for shirking, and an established pattern for showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  His commander noted that the applicant had been assigned to two different platoons on three different occasions and to three different sections while in one of the platoons.

On 28 March 1960, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notice of board action.  He requested that his case be considered by a board of officers, he requested counsel, and he requested that additional witnesses be called.

On 5 April 1960, a board of officers convened to determine if the applicant should be discharged for unfitness.  Several witnesses for the Government testified that the applicant’s attitude was very poor, that he was very inconsistent, and that he thought everyone was against him.  They testified that he would refuse to perform his duties, not get up when told to do so, and would leave his place of duty any time he desired to.  Two witnesses for the applicant testified that the applicant was an average soldier.  A former platoon leader testified that he would keep the applicant in his platoon if he were retained.  The applicant did not desire to testify.

The board recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness because of undesirable habits or traits of character, specifically, an established pattern for shirking, and recommended that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 12 April 1960, the appropriate authority approved the findings and the recommendation of the board.

On 18 April 1960, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 21 April 1960, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 4 months and 5 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

On 13 September 1962, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s young age at the time of his enlistment but the Board notes that he successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and knew the Army’s disciplinary requirements.  In addition, there is no evidence of record to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of racial prejudice.  On the contrary, the record shows that he received numerous chances for rehabilitation and two witnesses who testified in his behalf during his board hearing.

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

__jns___  __mhm___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045488	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010118	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600421	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.