MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073315

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he did not commit any military infractions and he served his unit and country honorably during his tour of duty.  However, off-duty he had financial problems which came to the attention of his commander, which resulted in his receiving a general discharge.  He further states that he is currently a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools and would be allowed to purchase pension credit for his military service with an honorable discharge.

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

He was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve (USAR) second lieutenant on 5 August 1959 and was ordered to active duty on 17 January 1960. He successfully completed his training as an infantry officer and was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

On 25 May 1961, the applicant’s regimental commander submitted a recommendation to eliminate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-105.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had repeatedly brought discredit upon the service through his failure to meet his personal financial obligations.  Although repeatedly counseled by his chain of command, he indicated a flagrant disregard for personal obligations, refused to answer correspondence from creditors, failed to pay debts as promised and repeatedly cashed personal checks that were returned for insufficient funds.  He also indicated that a letter of reprimand (LOR) was prepared and the applicant was informed that he would be afforded the opportunity to clear up his financial problems before the LOR was placed in his records.  He failed to do so and the LOR was filed in his records.  When a repetition of the letters was received, he was informed that unless the debts were liquidated, he would be recommended for elimination.  The debts were not liquidated. 

On 24 October 1961, a board of officers convened at the Department of the Army and selected the applicant for elimination from the service.  The notification for elimination required that the applicant be advised that he could tender his resignation in lieu of elimination or submit evidence in refutation of the allegations or any matter in mitigation, which he desired to be considered in his case.  He also had the right to submit a rebuttal to the elimination proceedings.

On 1 November 1961, the applicant tendered his resignation in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  He also acknowledged that he understood that if his resignation was accepted, that he would be discharged under honorable conditions. 

The applicant’s chain of command indicated that even after he had been recommended for elimination, he continued to demonstrate conduct unbecoming an officer and discreditable intentional failure to meet personal financial obligations by cashing worthless checks.  A general discharge was recommended. 

On 27 November 1961, the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination was accepted by the Department of the Army and a general discharge was directed, effective 1 December 1961.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 December 1961, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, due to resignation in lieu of elimination.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 15 days of total active service.

There is no indication that the applicant 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 635-120, served as the authority for resignation in lieu of elimination under Army Regulation 635-105.  The regulation in effect at the time provided that an officer who had been selected for elimination from the service by a general court-martial convening authority or who had been selected by a Department of the Army Selection Board for elimination or to show cause why he should not be eliminated pursuant to Army Regulation 635-105, may tender a resignation in lieu of elimination.  A characterization of honorable, under honorable conditions or under other than honorable conditions was authorized.

Army Regulation 635-208 served as the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness based on an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  The regulation then in effect provided that while an honorable or general discharge was authorized, 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 resignation and discharge were accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Despite the chain of command’s numerous attempts to counsel and assist the applicant in resolving his problems, his repeated mismanagement of his personal finances served to bring discredit to the service.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention that the reasons that served as the basis for his discharge were not military infractions and find it to be without merit.  The applicant was cashing bad checks on a military installation and his creditors were having to be dealt with by his chain of command.  The applicant was continually counseled by his superiors and he assured them on numerous occasions that he would take care of the matters, which he failed to do on more than one occasion.  The Board finds this conduct unbecoming a commissioned officer and a leader, all of which are military infractions.

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

__kwl ___  ___dh___  __ao____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073315	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1961/12/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-120	
DISCHARGE REASON	RESIGNATION	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  732	144.8000/A80.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.