MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 June 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003086893

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 other than honorable discharge be upgraded.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh because he could not read or write at the time.  

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 his records were lost in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents in the reconstructed record to allow the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of the case.  

A Certificate of Military Service (GSA Form 6954), issued by the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri, on 26 March 1981, confirms that the applicant was a member of the Army of the United States from 17 December 1943 through 1 September 1944.  It also verifies that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions, and that he held the rank of private (PVT) at the time.  

The available record includes a copy of an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decisional document that summarized a hearing conducted on the applicant’s case on 13 September 1948.  This document shows that the ADRB considered the applicant’s case, to include the testimony of counsel, and found that the action taken by the board of officers that recommended his separation was conducted in accordance with the applicable law and regulation in effect at the time.  

The ADRB decisional document also indicated that the action of the board of officers and the separation authority in determining the type of discharge to be issued to the applicant was amply supported by the evidence, and that no additional evidence of sufficient weight and credibility to warrant an upgrade had been presented.  Finally, the ADRB concluded that the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge should be denied.  

On 25 June 1974, the ADRB considered a second request from the applicant 
for an upgrade to his discharge.  The ADRB’s decisional document 
(OSA Form 172A) for this review confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Section VIII, Army Regulation 615-360, by reason of traits of character which rendered his retention in the service undesirable.  No acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition are recorded in this document.  It also shows that he was convicted of being absent without leave (AWOL) by a special court-martial, and that he had been in military confinement.  The ADRB found the applicant’s discharge to be proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his upgrade request a second time.  
Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel.  Section VIII provided for separation for inaptness (lack of a required degree of adaptability) and for members who demonstrated undesirable habits and traits of character.  Section VIII also specified that under the basic War Department policy, no man would be separated prior to the expiration of his term of service unless no useful service could be obtained from him.  A Blue Discharge Certificate that contained the authority for discharge was issued to identify this other than honorable discharge. The certificate contained neither a reason for the discharge or characterization of service.  

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 claim that his discharge should be upgraded because he could not read or write at the time.  However, it finds no evidence to support this claim, and even if true, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time.  Lacking 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 the separation process.  

3.  The evidence also shows that the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge was considered and denied by the ADRB in 1948 and again in 1974.  The Board finds the applicant has failed to provide any new evidence with this application that would support a different result from this Board.  

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

_JS____  __WDP___  __LEM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086893	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1944/09/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-360	
DISCHARGE REASON	Habits and Traits	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.