MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            25 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046950

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the penalty for his crime was too severe for the offense committed, that he spent 3 months in the stockade, that he developed a drinking problem while in the service which contributed to his misconduct and that he has since quit drinking.  He further states that since his discharge he has obtained his General Education Development (GED) high school equivalency, that he has learned a trade and has gone into business for himself, that he has not been in trouble since his discharge, and that his discharge should be upgraded based on his post-service accomplishments.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214), numerous certificates attesting to his post-service accomplishments and as a police report showing that he has had no encounters with law enforcement officials.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records.  However, the DD Form 214 submitted by the applicant shows:

He enlisted in Louisville, Kentucky on 15 June 1954 for a period of 3 years and served until he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 June 1956 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness based on habits and traits of character rendering his retention in the service as undesirable.  He had served 1 year, 9 months and 10 days of total active service and had 64 days of lost time.  He had no decorations or awards and had served 1 year, 4 months and 10 days of foreign service.

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 that render then unfit for military service.  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.  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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Inasmuch as the Board does not have the facts and circumstances that led to his discharge available for review, the exact nature of his offenses cannot be determined and therefore it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contentions and applauds his post-service accomplishments, the Board cannot make an informed determination that his discharge was too severe for the offenses committed without substantiated evidence showing what offenses he committed.  Therefore, the Board must presume that the actions taken by the Army at the time were appropriate under the circumstances.  

4.  The Board finds that the applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the available evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

5.  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.

6.  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

___jh ___  ___le____  ___kh___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046950	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1956/06/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208/UNFIT	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFITNESS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.