MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063136

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge so that he can receive medical assistance from the VA Medical Center.
The applicant submits a copy of his criminal record, three character references and a copy of his separation document in support of his application.

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

On 17 May 1963, with parental consent the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63A10 (Auto Maintenance Helper).  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 14 July 1964, while assigned to Friedberg, Germany, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being disrespectful in language to a superior officer.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $20.00 pay.

On 24 February 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for missing battery formation and for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 26 February 1965, DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Appellate or Other Supplementary Actions Under Article 15, UCMJ) shows that the imposed punishment of reduction to pay grade E-2, 14 days restriction and extra duty was set aside.  All rights, privileges and property were restored.

On 24 March 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for two occasion of disobeying a lawful order.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 
14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 11 August 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 7 days restriction and extra duty.

On 20 August 1965, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.

On 3 September 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer and of breaking restriction on two separate occasions.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $60 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months.
On 18 October 1965, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to CHL was suspended for 4 months.  On 16 December 1965, the unexecuted portion to CHL for 6 months was duly executed.

On 9 June 1966, the applicant was convicted by SPCM of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 April to 26 May 1966.  He was sentenced to CHL for 
6 months and a forfeiture of $83 pay per month for 6 months.

On 7 June 1966, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s frequent breaches of conduct and discipline, untrustworthiness, and a lack of regard for the rights of others.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

On 22 July 1966, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 17 August 1966, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 2 years, 10 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had 146 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__jhl___  __wtm___  __rwa___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063136	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020314	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19660817	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.