MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2001      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050336

	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. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge; that under current standards, he would not receive the type of discharge that he did; that his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good [or pretty good]; that he received letters of recommendation; that his record of promotions show that he was generally a good service member; that there were other acts of merit; that he was so close to finishing his tour that it was unfair to give him a bad discharge; that he has been a good citizen since discharge; that his record of court-martial convictions indicate only isolated or minor offenses; that his record of AWOL indicates only minor or isolated offenses; and that his financial problems impaired his ability to serve. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 10 January 1955 for a period of 3 years and trained as a pioneer.

On 21 March 1957 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 18 March 1957 to 19 March 1957.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay and 15 days of restriction.

On 12 May 1957 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days.

On 29 June 1957 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL (5 ½ hours) on 27 June 1957.  His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction.  

On 29 July 1957 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of going from his place of duty without proper authority.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of private (E-1).

On 18 August 1957 the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 to determine his suitability for military service.  

On 22 August 1957 the applicant appeared before a board of officers to determine if he should be retained in the service.  The board of officers, after hearing testimony from the applicant and his unit commander, found the applicant undesirable for further retention in the service because of undesirable habits and traits of character manifested by repeated acts of misconduct and one case of venereal disease.  The board recommended that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.           

The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board on 4 September 1957.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 September 1957 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits and traits of character for misconduct.  He had served 2 years and 8 months of total active service with 12 days lost.

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.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  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 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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his average conduct and efficiency ratings were good [or pretty good] is not valid.  Evidence of record shows that on 
18 August 1957 his conduct and efficiency ratings were poor/fair. 

4.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention regarding his post service conduct.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

5.  The applicant contends that financial problems impaired his ability to serve.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.    
6.  All of the applicant’s contentions were considered by the Board.  However, the applicant failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

7.  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.

8.  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_____  CLA_____  HBO_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050336	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19570921	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Undesirable habits and traits of character for misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.