MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071615

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that racial discrimination was the cause of his discharge.  

In support of his application, he submits a supplemental letter and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 1959 for a period of three years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and served in Germany from 27 July 1960 through 5 November 1961 as a launcher crewman.  

While stationed in Germany, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 August 1961 to 14 August 1961.  He was sentenced to reduction to private E-2, forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for 1 month, and restriction to Barton Barracks for 1 month.

The applicant’s personnel records contain a DD Form 789 (Unit Punishment Record) which shows he received five nonjudicial punishments during the period September 1960 through September 1961 for failure to repair, possession of alcoholic beverages in the billets, and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer.
His punishments consisted of restriction, extra duty and reduction in grade.

On 14 September 1961, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination which diagnosed him as having passive-aggressive reaction.  The psychiatrist stated that there was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis and recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.

On 27 September 1961, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing by a board of officers and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

The separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged on 17 October 1961, because of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, paragraph 10b(3) with an undesirable discharge.  
`
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 6 November 1961.  He had served 2 years, 1 month and 26 days of active military service.

There is no evidence 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 having undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that his discharge was due to racial discrimination.  However, there is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of racial discrimination.

3.  The applicant’s service did not then meet and does not now 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.

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

RVO_____  SK______  JPI_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071615	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020718	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19611106	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.