MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  29 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001058921

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
He states that he completed basic training in 1950, advanced individual training at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and was later transferred to Korea.  He was able to obtain copies of letters that he had written to his mother while stationed in Korea. Upon arrival in Korea, he was being transported with other troops to his assigned unit, when the vehicle that he was traveling in struck a land mine.  He was pinned under the vehicle by his legs.  He was transported to an Army hospital where he spent 30 days recovering.  On 1 July 1951, he received a shell fragment wound to his left hand.  The next wound was between the tibia and fibula of his right leg. He later received additional injuries which were not life threatening.  In December 1951, he was transferred to an Army National Guard unit, which is where his problems with drinking began.  On 19 July 1953, he was informed to go home and that his discharge would be forwarded to him.  He returned home and was employed by several different employers but was subsequently fired for drinking. He was later employed in Muncie and Albany, Indiana, and was apprehended by civilian authorities in Logan, Ohio.  He was placed in civilian confinement and was later released to military authorities in Fort Knox, Kentucky, pending court-martial.  He remained in military confinement for  30 days and was later discharged with an undesirable discharge.  He has served his country honorably, participated actively in combat, received many wounds, and respectfully requests that his discharge be upgraded in order to receive treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility.  He concluded by stating that he has spent the last 5 years dedicating his time to veterans of his community and is currently an active member in several veterans’ organizations.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The Disabled American Veterans (DAV), as counsel for the applicant, stated that it is import that the Board consider all contributing factors surrounding the applicant’s case coupled with the impetuousness of his youth.  Counsel also stated that the infractions did constitute military misconduct; however, he is not a criminal.  Therefore, with all the evidence as set forth herein; counsel humbly requests any and all doubt that has occurred, be resolved in favor of the applicant and corrective action be taken to change the applicant’s discharge favorably.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he enlisted on 24 June 1950.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) shows that he served as an infantryman.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 11 February 1954, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
615-368, for unfitness.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 8 days of creditable service and 379 days of lost time due to AWOL.

He was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Distinguished Unit Citation (now known as the Presidential Unit Citation), and the Purple Heart.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 24 July 1981.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 3 August 1982. 

The applicant reapplied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 1 August 2001.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations.  This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 11 June 2001.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  That regulation 
provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness 
by giving evidence of undesirable habits of character manifested by misconduct.

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 notes the applicant and counsel’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  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 procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of 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

__ro___  ___wp__  __ji____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	A2001058921	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19540211	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.