MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            31 October 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073424

	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. Carolyn Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was ashamed of his discharge and did not believe he could get it upgraded.  Now with his uncle's encouragement, he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge based upon his being a good citizen for the last 47 years.

In support of his application, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his discharge certificate, a copy of DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States); and three letters of character reference. 

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 30 September 1952.

On 16 December 1952, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 to 26 November.  He was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of $41.00 pay per month for 3 months.  The sentence was approved on 16 December 1952.

On 6 May 1953, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of being AWOL from 9 to 15 April 1953.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days (suspended) and forfeiture of $10.00 pay per month for 1 month.  The sentence was approved on 6 May 1953.

On 8 July 1953, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 25 May 1953 to 19 June 1953.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 2 months.  The sentenced was approved on 8 July 1953.

On 24 September 1954, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being insubordinate toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His punishment consisted of extra duty for 2 hours per night for 2 weeks.

On 9 February 1955, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful towards a superior officer.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 4 months.  The sentenced was approved on 17 February 1955.

On 15 March 1955, the unit commander stated that the applicant had never shown the qualities desired of a soldier and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 by reason of unfitness.  

On 17 March 1955, a psychiatrist evaluated the applicant and determined after careful examination, that the applicant had a passive aggressive reaction that was chronic moderate, and manifested by frequent AWOL's, stubbornness, inefficiency, insubordination, and argumentativeness.  The personality disorder was found to have existed prior to service.  The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of AR 615-368 for unfitness due to misconduct.

On 4 April 1955, a board of officers convened at Post Headquarters, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.  The applicant appeared before the board with counsel.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, to present evidence in his own behalf, to testify in person or submit a written statement, and to submit a brief.  

On 5 April 1955, the board of officers found that the applicant was unfit for further service and recommended that he be discharged from the service because of unfitness due to chronic petty offenses and misconduct.

On 18 April 1955, the appropriate authority approved the Board findings for discharge under the provisions of AR 615-368 with a UD.  Accordingly, on 17 May 1955, the applicant was discharged from the service with a UD.  He was credited with 2 years and 17 days of creditable military service.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned.  A UD 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.  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.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The Board acknowledges the length of time since the applicant's discharge, his successful transition to civilian life, and the character references noting his accomplishments since discharge.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

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

__clg___  __rks___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073424	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021031	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19550517	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.