MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074556

	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:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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:  That he was promised that his discharge would be upgraded to honorable and to date it has not been upgraded. 

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

He was inducted in Nashville, Tennessee, on 1 August 1961 and was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to undergo his basic combat training (BCT).  On 4 October 1961, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 5 October 1961 for a period of 3 years and on 6 October 1961, he was transferred to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).

The applicant went absent without authority (AWOL) from 17 November to 5 December 1961 and from 16 December 1961 until he was returned to military control on 8 January 1962.  He was convicted by a special court-martial of the AWOL offenses on 21 February 1962.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a period of 6 months, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.  The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as pertained to confinement at hard labor for a period of 3 months, a forfeiture of pay for 3 months and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric and mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The examining psychiatrist indicated that the applicant stated flatly that he does not like the Army, but was vague as to his reasons.  He shows no remorse or guilt over his actions and seemed committed to a course of action that will eventually bring about his separation from the Army.  He recommended that the applicant be separated  from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of undesirable habits and traits of character.

On 9 March 1962, the applicant underwent a review by an Evaluation and Classification Board at Fort Meade, Maryland, to determine his disposition after release from confinement.  After reviewing all of the recommendations, to include a recommendation by the commander that he be restored to duty, the board recommended immediate restoration to duty.

On 21 March 1962, the convening authority suspended his sentence for a period of 1 month, unless sooner vacated.  The applicant again went AWOL from 27 March through 28 March 1962 and his suspended sentence was subsequently vacated on 12 April 1962.

On 4 May 1962, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, due his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record, his history of going AWOL and his failure to respond to attempts at rehabilitation.

On 7 May 1962, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 21 May 1962 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 May 1962, 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 had served 3 months and 10 days of total active service and had 134 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no indication in the available records which shows 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.  There is also no indication that he was advised that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reasons of unfitness for those individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction, shirking or establishing a pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate and there have never been any automatic provisions for upgrading such a discharge.

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 violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions that he was informed that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months of his discharge appear to be without merit.  There never has been, nor is there now, any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a discharge.  Additionally, the Board finds no evidence that is sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when compared to his misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short time.  

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

__kak ___  __tap ___  __bjl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074556	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1962/05/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.