MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        .

	BOARD DATE:             24 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003086694

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II 		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 he was not properly represented and did not see his appointed lawyer until the beginning of his trial.  He also claims that he was not allowed to tell his side of the story.  He further indicates that he was sentenced to three months confinement and a forfeiture pf $60.00 pay, but actually spent six months in the stockade.  He goes on to state that he was young, uneducated, and did not fully understand the situation at the time.  He also claims that he now has physical problems that are the result of injuries he received to his knees while serving in the Army.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) and an Extract of Military Records of Previous Convictions (DD Form 493).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the fire that occurred at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  The information herein was gleaned from a copy of DD Form 214 and 
DD Form 493.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he entered the Army for three years on 7 July 1954.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 117.07 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  The record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure.

The DD Form 493 on file confirms the applicant was tried and convicted by summary court-martial on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  29 November 1955, for being absent without leave (AWOL) on 
11 November 1955; and 21 June 1956, for being drunk and disorderly in a public place and for breaking restriction.  This document also shows that on 
30 December 1957, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of being AWOL from on or about 16 September to on or about 14 November 1957.

A separation packet on the applicant, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing is not on file.  However, there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file that contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 confirms that on 31 January 1958, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness, and that he received an UD.  This separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years, 
2 months, and 10 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 137 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness who possessed undesirable habits and traits of character.  The regulation provided for the separation of enlisted personnel under this provision when 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 and carefully considered the applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded because he was inadequately represented by legal counsel, he was young and uneducated, and that he suffers from physical problems as a result of being injured during his Army service.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.  Further, the personal issues raised even if true are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 

2.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events that led to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document on file.  This document contains the authority and reason for his discharge and was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.  Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.

3.  Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout his discharge processing.  Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and is appropriate given his disciplinary history and undistinguished record of service.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.  

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

__MKP__  __REB__  __FCJ __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086694	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19580131	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 967	144.0033	
2. 969	144.0035	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.