]MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070670

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his UD was the result of his youth, immaturity, not knowing his biological father, martial problems, and personal problems, all of which impaired his ability to serve in the Army.  He states that he was harassed and mistreated by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in his unit, which led him to consuming alcohol more than he should have.   He states that he is now a productive citizen, a responsible father and husband, who is free of any incarceration and has supported veterans causes and legislative issues since his discharge.  He now requests that the Board consider his poor health and old age, and grant him an upgrade of his discharge in order to restore his self pride.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) and 15 letters of support.  

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

On 11 July 1961, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 117.07
(Light Weapons Infantryman) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

The applicant’s record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure.  However, it does contain a disciplinary history that shows he was convicted of the following offenses by a special court-martial on the following two occasions:  
24 September 1962, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 July 1962 to 2 August 1962; and 22 August 1963, for being AWOL from 20 June 1963 to 
1 August 1963.

On 28 August 1963, the applicant’s commander notified him that action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  The commander stated that the reasons for the action were the applicant’s disciplinary history, record of confinement, adverse attitude towards the service, and chronic AWOL related offenses.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification, waived his right to counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

Although he initially waived his right to an administrative separation board, on 
13 September 1963, a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 to determine if he should be discharged from the Army because of unfitness.  While the Board proceedings are on file, the final board findings and recommendations are not contained in the record.  

On 3 October 1963, the applicant was discharged and issued a UD.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 
23 days of creditable active service and had accrued 153 of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

The letters of support provided by the applicant attest to his successful accomplishments since his separation from the Army.  

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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.  Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for unfitness when there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge 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.  As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his contentions and the letters of support for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, even though he is to be congratulated on his excellent post service conduct, these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief in light of his extensive disciplinary history and undistinguished overall record of service.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  The Board is satisfied that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and it concludes that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, it finds an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted at this time. 

3.  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.

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

__FNE__  __ TSK  _  _ _LEM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070670	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19631003	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.	144.9301	
3.	144.9307	
4.	144.9323	
5.		
6.