MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073058

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time, he was young, immature and just recently married and his wife was running around while he was in the service.  He could not properly deal with it at the time but has been a good citizen since his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a letter from a past commander of a local service organization, which attests to his good post service conduct and character. 

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

He was inducted in Jamaica, New York, on 26 March 1962 at the age of 25 and at that time he indicated that he was single.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, to undergo his training. 

On 24 May 1962, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 21 May to 23 May 1962.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay.

He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Sheridan, Illinois, on 28 June 1962, for duty as a construction machine operator.  He was transferred with his unit to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 28 June 1962 and was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 26 July 1962.  

The applicant went AWOL on 25 December 1962 and remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Dix, on 22 January 1963, where charges were preferred against him.

On 15 February 1963, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 25 December 1962 to 22 January 1963.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

On 1 July 1963, while still at Fort Dix, he again went AWOL and remained absent until 23 September 1963.  Charges were preferred against him and he was convicted by a special court-martial on 31 October 1963 of the AWOL offense.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a forfeiture of pay.  

Also on 31 October 1963, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He cited the applicant’s record of misconduct as the basis for his recommendation.

The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination which indicates that the applicant was married, immature, impulsive and continually putting himself into stressful situations.  He was experiencing considerable difficulty in military adjustment because of marital difficulties and his ineffective methods of handling them.  The examining psychiatrist opined that he was mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from the service.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant’s commander initiated the action to separate him from the service and the appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation on 14 November 1963 and directed that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 26 November 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 7 days of total active service and had 208 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when compared to his overall undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

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

__be____  ___fe___  ___wb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073058	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1963/11/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/a51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.