MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            30 September 2003   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003086985

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was assured that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months.

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

He was inducted into and entered active duty on 10 December 1965.  He completed basic combat training and began advanced individual training as a telephone switchboard operator.  

On 29 August 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 June to 5 July 1966, from 9 July to 25 July 1966 and on 10 August 1966 of violating parole.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for 
3 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.  

On 10 January 1967, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The unit commander cited the reason for his proposed action as defiance and AWOLs.  On the same day his intermediate commander agreed with the recommendation.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his right to have a board of officers consider his case, to be represented by counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  

On 10 November 1966, a medical examination found him to be qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1.1.1.1.1.1.  

On 13 January 1967, the applicant received a psychiatric examination.  He was diagnosed as a chronic, severe, passive-aggressive personality.  The applicant had no disqualifying mental or physical defects requiring medical processing.  He was responsible for his actions and could both distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to participate in board proceedings.  He was cleared for appropriate administrative action.

On 1 February 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate under paragraph 6a(1) of Army Regulation 635-212.  He had completed 7 months and 11 days of creditable service and 196 days of lost time due to AWOL or confinement.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

On 10 March 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his 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.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

3.  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. 

4.  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

___RJW _  __MHM _  ___MVT _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086985	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030930	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670102	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A 144.8300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.