MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          9 October 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003085224

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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:  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was young when he was assigned to Korea.  A Soldier on guard duty shot him in the leg and a field medic treated him, but no record was made of the injury.  Today, he suffers from the leg injury and it has contributed to his back problems.  Approximately 30 years ago, a doctor at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Salem, Virginia, diagnosed him as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and stated he should have received a medical discharge.  He did not pursue the issue and he worked as long as possible, but he has been unemployable for the past 10 years. Now, he needs help.  He trusts the Board will give him what he deserves.  He provides in support of his request DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods ending 10 February 1958 and 2 August 1960.

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

That prior to the period of enlistment under review, the applicant’s mother signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the Army at age 17.  He served from 21 January 1955 through 10 February 1958 and was assigned to Korea from December 1955-April 1957 where he worked as a construction helper and a combat engineer.  There is no evidence in the record that he ever received a gunshot wound to his leg.  During this period of service for which he was honorably separated, he received one special court-martial (SPCM) conviction and he had 19 days of lost time due to military confinement.

After a short break in service, the applicant, then 21 years old, reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 25 May 1959 in pay grade E-2.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 120.00 (Pioneer).   On 5 September 1959, he was assigned to Germany. 

On 31 December 1959, the applicant harassed a female German civilian in the Post Chapel.  On 2 January 1960, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against him for being disorderly and creating a disturbance in the Post Chapel.  His punishment included 14 days of restriction.  

On 5 March 1960, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of wrongfully appropriating a M-38 1/4-ton truck, of a value of approximately $1,987.00, the property of the US Army, and of wrongfully making an unlawful oath in an affidavit by stating that his platoon sergeant authorized the dispatch of the vehicle for him to go off post.  His sentenced included reduction to pay grade 
E-1, the forfeiture of $60 pay per month for 6 months, and confinement at hard labor for 2 months.  
On 20 May 1960, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 12-13 April 1960, of failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 19 April 1960, and of breaking restriction on 23 and 24 April 1960.  His sentence included the forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 4 months and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.  Only that portion of the sentence that provided for confinement at hard labor for 1 month, hard labor without confinement for 3 months, and the forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 4 months was approved.

On 24 May 1960, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction and leaving his unit in an AWOL status from 15-16 May 1960.  His punishment included 14 days of restriction.

On 10 June 1960, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation in connection with a possible administrative elimination from the service.  Professionally trained personnel determined the applicant suffered from "an antisocial personality; chronic, moderate; manifested by disregard for socially accepted codes of behavior and an established pattern for shirking that existed prior to service."  He demonstrated a definite hostile attitude for all authority figures and, throughout the evaluation process, he picked at his cuticles and, in general, he was impolite.  Furthermore, he was determined to have no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  He also had the mental capacity to understand the nature of board proceedings and he was able to cooperate in his own defense.  The evaluating official recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208 for unfitness.

The applicant was notified that an administrative separation action was being initiated against him for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-208.  On 21 June 1960, the applicant waived legal representation and his right to a hearing before a board of officers.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 22 June 1960, the applicant's platoon leader (a first lieutenant) indicated in a written statement that, in addition to speaking to the applicant about the above offenses, he spoke to him on several occasions about his attitude; that the applicant required constant supervision; that he was profane; that he lied on several occasions, and; that he behaved poorly in the presence of women.  The applicant's platoon leader also stated that, in view of the applicant's poor character traits and violations of discipline, he did not know of any reasons for retaining him.

On the same date, the applicant's squad leader indicated in a written statement that the applicant had goofed off on most details for the past 6 months. The only time that he did not goof off was when he [squad leader] remained in the applicant's presence and personally supervised him.  The squad leader also stated the applicant was not trustworthy; that he went on sick call at least three times a week; and he was a bad influence on the squad.  He no longer wanted the applicant to work for him, nor did he what him to remain in his squad.  

On 23 June 1960, the applicant's commander recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.

On 30 June 1960, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a UD.  On 2 August 1960, the applicant was separated.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service during the enlistment period.  His DD Form 214 does not show that he had any lost time.  During his prior period of enlistment, he completed 4 years, 3 months and 12 days of active military service. 

On 12 October 1964, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members found to be unfit for further military service, and without rehabilitative potential, would be separated.  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, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature, however, the applicant was 21 years old and met entrance qualification standards, to include age, at the time that he reenlisted.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

4.  The applicant's record does not support his contentions that he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder at the time of separation or that he received a gunshot wound to the leg while serving in Korea.  He has provided no evidence in support of his contentions.   

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

__rvo___  __rjo___  __ecp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085254	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031009	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600802	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.