MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048352

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.   

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he has been a productive citizen since his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits two character reference letters, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States). 

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

At age 17, with parental consent, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 December 1956 for a period of 6 years.  While in basic training, he was convicted by summary court-martial of being AWOL from 7 February 1957 to
16 February 1957.  He was sentenced to forfeit $52 dollars for one month and
30 days restriction.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 1 March 1957.   

On 4 October 1957 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of being AWOL from 20 September 1957 to 30 September 1957.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $55 per month for 6 months. On 4 October 1957 the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement at hard labor for 4 months and a forfeiture of $55 per month for 4 months. 

On 10 February 1958 the applicant’s unit commander recommended that he appear before a board of officers to determine whether or not he should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  His reasons for the action recommended were:  
(1) habitual shirker and (2) repeatedly committed petty offenses.  The unit commander stated that the applicant “has been given continuous counseling on the importance of being a good soldier and has received every advantage to aid him in doing so to no avail”. 

The Unit Commanders Evaluation Data Sheet, dated 10 February 1958, shows the entry “Immature and lacks desire to adapt himself to the military service.  A constant disciplinary problem.” in Section II (Characteristics).  

On 21 February 1958 the applicant appeared before a board of officers without counsel.  The board of officers determined that the applicant had demonstrated that he was undesirable for further retention in the military service by committing petty offenses repeatedly and constantly shirking his duties.  The board recommended that he be discharged from the service because of undesirable habits or traits of character and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 
The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board on 25 February 1958.

Accordingly, on 5 March 1958, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for repeated military offenses not warranting trial by court-martial.  He had served 
10 months and 16 days of total active service with 122 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for 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 1c of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for repeated military offenses not warranting trial by court-martial.  The regulation also provided that when discharged because of undesirable habits or traits of character an Undesirable Discharge Certificate will be furnished. 
 
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 considered the applicant’s contention regarding his post service conduct and the character reference letters provided in support of his claim.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.    

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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

JHL_____  GDP____  DPH_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048352	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19580305	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Repeated military offenses not warrangin trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.