MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047527

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 (UD) be upgraded.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes his discharge was unwarranted based on his overall record of military service. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.  

The evidence does include a Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), which was issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation.  This document confirms that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 December 1953 and that his service was terminated by an UD on 17 April 1956 after he had completed a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days of active military service. 

The DD Form 214 also verifies that the authority for the applicant’s discharge was Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness.  The reason for his separation was based on his possessing undesirable habits or traits of character, which rendered his retention in service undesirable.  

In addition, block 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the separation documents contains a “None” entry, which confirms that he was never cited for valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his tenure on active duty. 

There is no record of the applicant ever requesting an upgrade to his discharge through the Army Discharge Review Board within the 15 year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability, based on their possessing undesirable habits or traits of character which served to render their further service undesirable.  Separation processing under these provisions required an administrative separation board review and recommendation on whether to separate members for either unfitness or unsuitability.  An UD was considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions for unfitness. 

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 contention; however, after a careful review of the available evidence, finds no evidentiary basis which would warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 

2.  The applicant’s records were not available to the Board for review and there are no facts and circumstances concerning the specific events that led to the his discharge from the Army on file.  However, there is a properly constituted 
DD Form 214 on file, which was issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation.  This document confirms that he received an UD, by reason of unfitness, based on his undesirable habits or traits of character.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, and that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall available record of service.  

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

___ao___  __bfh ___  ___teo __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047527	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1956/04/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.