MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           10 April 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083443

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he requests an upgrade to his discharge in order to be able to receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He states that he can no longer afford to pay for his medical needs.  He concludes that he deeply regrets the circumstances that brought him to this situation, but he desperately needs help. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.  

The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  However, a properly constituted separation document  (DD Form 214), which contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge is available.  This document confirms that the applicant entered active duty on 
14 June 1949.  

Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s separation document is blank and shows that he earned no awards or decorations during his tenure on active duty. 

The DD Form 214 also confirms that the applicant was discharged with an
UD on 2 August 1952.  Item 8 (Reason and Authority for Separation) contains an entry that verifies that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness.  Item 55 (Remarks) also contains an entry that verifies that the applicant accrued 240 days of lost time during his active duty tenure.  

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. 

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 UD should be upgraded in order to allow him to obtain medical benefits administered by the DVA.  However, while empathetic with his medical difficulties, this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 
2.  The available evidence is void of a discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the applicant’s discharge.  However, the Board notes that there is a properly constituted 
DD Form 214 on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected throughout the separation process.  Thus, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.  

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

___fe ___  ___mt___  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083443	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1952/08/02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.