MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          9 October 2003      
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003086770

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (i.e., undesirable dischasrge) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is 61 years old.  He believes he paid for his mistake.  He wants to get a civil service job.  He realizes that he made a very serious error in his life.  He is trying now to correct it.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 January 1959.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 642.10 (Heavy Vehicle Driver).

On 30 July 1959, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for missing bed check.

On 8 September 1959, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of absenting himself from his unit without proper authority.

On 18 September 1959, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of going from his appointed place of duty without proper authority and one specification of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 23 September 1959, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation.  He was found to possess sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and to adhere to the right and was considered to be mentally responsible for his acts.

On 23 September 1959, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 24 September 1959, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  

On 24 September 1959, the applicant’s commander notified him he was being recommended for appearance before a board of officers to determine whether he should be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 28 September 1959, the applicant's commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  

On 8 October 1959, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.

The applicant's separation document is not available.  His Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) paperwork states he was discharged on 30 October 1959 with an undesirable discharge.

On 31 August 1971, the ADRB denied the applicant's request to upgrade 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 for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

Army Regulation 635-200, the regulation that currently governs the separation of enlisted personnel, states in pertinent part that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Considering his one Article 15 and his three convictions by summary court-martial, the characterization of his discharge as undesirable was appropriate.  The Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence on which to base an upgrade of his discharge to either a fully honorable discharge or a general under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  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	AR2003086770	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031009	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19591020	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.