MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 March 2002           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066623

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not unfit for service.  He states that all of his military offenses, with the exception of one, took place in February or March 1964 and resulted from a personality conflict with his new first sergeant.  

The applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a copy of his disciplinary record in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 1962 for a period of three years.  He successfully completed training as a field communications crewman.  He completed basic airborne training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, as a wireman.

The applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on three occasions between October 1963 and March 1964, for failing to repair for reveille formation, for failing to go to appointed place of duty, for unlawfully entering a building and misbehaving by drinking an alcoholic beverage.

On 18 March 1964, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing to go to his place of duty and being AWOL on 16 March 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month (confinement suspended), forfeiture of $55.00 pay for 1 month, and reduction to private.

On 1 April 1964, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of failing to obey a lawful order.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, forfeiture of $55.00 for 1 month, and reduction to private.

The facts and circumstances and the board action surrounding the applicant’s discharge process are not on file.  However, his DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged on 23 April 1964 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with an UOTHC discharge.  

He had 1 year, 8 months and 1 day of creditable service with 21 days of lost time due to confinement.  

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an 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 for unfitness.  Section II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was not unfit for service.  However, his records show that he received three Article 15s and two summary court-martials during his period of service.

3.  The Board also noted the applicant’s contention that his military offenses were the result of a personality conflict with his new first sergeant.  However, there is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant’s claim.

4.  The applicant’s service does not meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200.  Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.

5.  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.

6.  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

JL______  RWA_____  WTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066623	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020314	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640423	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.