MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:          13 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001052196

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		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 (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  That in 1958 he requested that his discharge be upgraded and his request was granted in 1960.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records are presumed lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from a reconstructed record.  The information available consists of:  a NA Form 13038 (United States of America Certification of Military Service); Special Order Number 194, dated 16 August 1954, from Headquarters, Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky; a Morning Report dated 30 July 1953; and four letters of referral.  The letters that were written on behalf of the applicant state that he has become a loving, caring, compassionate husband, and a sincere, law-abiding citizen devoted to caring for the welfare of others. 

The applicant's records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, the NA Form 13038 that is available shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 1953 and he was separated in pay grade E-1 with a UD on 18 August 1954.

Special Order Number 194 shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, due to unfitness (undesirable habits or traits of character).  The available records do not clearly indicate the specific reason for his discharge. 

The applicant's estimated service equals approximately 1 year and 19 days.  It cannot be determined whether he had lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL) or in confinement.  

The evidence of record indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board in 1998, well beyond that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic policy and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel when habits or traits of character rendered the soldier undesirable and rehabilitation was considered impossible due to the soldier's own misconduct.  The appropriate authority could approve a HD, a general discharge, or a UD under this regulation. 

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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with a UD.  Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, he would have consulted with defense counsel and counsel would have represented him before a board of officers or he would have voluntarily signed a statement indicating that he did not desire a personal appearance before such a board.  He also would have been informed of the basis for the proposed discharge action.  Further, he would have been informed that he could receive a UD and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes regularity in the discharge process 

3. The Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined in his application and in the documents with his application.  However, the Board found that these post-service accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge or the characterization of service granted.

4.  There is no evidence in the available record to indicate that the applicant's discharge was ever upgraded and he has submitted no evidence to prove otherwise.

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

__fne____  __jed___  ___tlp ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001052196	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20010913	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19540818	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	UNKNOWN 	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNKNOWN	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.