MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           1 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073864

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that if he received a discharge at the present time it would have been an honorable or medical discharge.  He states that his immaturity and the stress caused him to make mistakes.  He has since matured to the point that he now advises young men that by going absent without leave (AWOL), they not only do an injustice to themselves, but also to their families, friends, and their country.  He claims that in speaking with some former soldiers, he has found that some with better educations than he, who faced similar circumstances, received honorable or medical discharges.  He further indicates that these former members did not serve in a war, as he did, and did not receive the awards and decorations for their service that he did.  He explains that he came from a deprived background and had much hurt and anger as a child.  He claims that given his lack of education, he believes that the enlistment officer would have had to alter his aptitude scores in order for him to get into the Army.  He also claims that he believes that the enlistment was for three years and he must have been entering his third year when he was discharged.  He indicates that he faced full scale combat at “Heartbreak Ridge”, where his division was caught in a crossfire, and he was picking up the rear with an BAR (Automatic Rifle).  He claims to have suffered from frozen hands and feet, and suffered severe stress because he had to kill and to watch as woman and children were killed.  Although these things were necessary to keep themselves alive, this did not diminish the stress, hurt, and anger he felt for having had to do these things. He claims that he still suffers the effects of this combat and is embarrassed when he is in and public place and a loud noise results in his falling to the ground.  He still suffers nightmares.  He states that it is difficult to understand that after this combat service, which resulted in awards, his country could let him down.  Finally, he states that his post service conduct has been good, and he is married and raised 6 children in a loving household.  At the urging of these 6 children after he suffered a heart attack, he knew it was time to request an upgrade of discharge.  Finally, the applicant requests that the Board consider his acknowledgment of his  wrongful misconduct, which regrettably has hurt himself and his family.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his discharge packet, three letters of support, and a Report Of Proceedings Of Board Of Officers (DA Form 37).

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

The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire in 1973.  The information herein was gleaned from a copy of the discharge packet and DA Form 37 submitted by the applicant.  

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 24 June 1953 for a period of 6 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 941.00 (Camera Technician) and the highest rank he attained during his active duty tenure was corporal. 

The applicant’s disciplinary history includes a conviction by a summary 
court-martial, of being AWOL from 16 November 1953 to 1 December 1953.  In addition, he was convicted by special court-martial on two separate occasions of the following offenses: AWOL, from 5 May 1955 to 21 May 1955; and AWOL, from 1 February 1956 to 16 February 1956. 

On 23 November 1956, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 to determine whether or not he should be discharged prior to his expiration of his term of service due to undesirable habits and traits.  

On 26 November 1956, a board of officers was convened to consider the applicant’s separation from the service.  The board determined that the applicant’s misconduct, evidenced by his time lost, his record of trial by 
courts-martial, and his displayed habits and traits of character rendered him undesirable for retention in the Army.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for undesirable habits and traits of character, and that he be issued an UD, and he was accordingly discharged. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his acts of misconduct that led to him receiving an UD were the acts of immaturity, the stress of combat, and his lack of education.  However, lacking any evidence of record or independent evidence to show that these factors contributed to his misconduct, the Board is compelled to conclude that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support the requested relief. 
2.  The Board notes and congratulates the applicant on his post service conduct. However, the limited evidence available confirms that his discharge was accomplished in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Thus, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, based on the limited evidence available, the Board finds no basis to conclude that his discharge is not an accurate reflection of his overall record of service.  

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

__RVO__  __MKP  _  __AAO __ DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.