MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029397

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his misconduct was the result of his being drunk and supposedly going into a sergeant’s room and stealing something.  He claims the incident took place shortly after his return from Korea, when he and a few others went out and got drunk.  He states that he passed out in his platoon sergeant’s room and the next day he was accused of stealing something.  He indicates that he does not remember what the item was.  At that time he was given a hearing and was discharged.  He desires to clear his record at this time and has enclosed 15 letters in support of his application.  These letters were prepared by family members and friends, and attest to his good character.

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

The applicant’s official military records were not available for review by this Board.  In 1973, a fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center.  In all probability, the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, the Board did have a record of proceedings published by the Army Discharge Review Board, dated 9 October 1962, which contained sufficient information for this Board to rely on in conducting a review of this case.  

On 17 August 1954, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years.  The highest rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3, and there is no indication on file that the applicant performed any acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his tenure in service. 

There is evidence on file that the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history.  This included his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ; in addition, to his being convicted by summary 
court-martial and two separate special court-martial panels.

On 15 April 1955, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial panel of stealing two coats, a watch, and government property.  His sentence included confinement for 6 months and a forfeiture of $55.00.  On 27 December 1955, he was found guilty by summary court-martial of stealing a wallet and was punished with a forfeiture of $60.00.  Finally, on 24 September 1957, he was again found guilty by a special court-martial panel of stealing a billfold and $15.00.  The resultant sentence included 6 months of confinement and a forfeiture of $65.00.

On 22 October 1957, the applicant’s unit commander requested his discharge for misconduct, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  The reasons cited for this action were the offenses contained in the 24 September 1957 
court-martial proceedings, the fact that he had accrued 153 days of time lost due to misconduct, and the lack of pride and spirit reflected in his behavior and appearance.  The commander concluded that because of the applicant’s undesirable character and the fact that he was totally unreliable, he held no value to the Army.

On 15 November 1957, an administrative separation board convened, and after reviewing the case and receiving testimony from witnesses, they recommended that the applicant be separated with an UD.  On 19 November 1957, their  findings and recommendations were approved by the separation authority and the applicant’s discharge was directed.  Accordingly, on 25 November 1957, the applicant was separated with an UD.

On 9 October 1962, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge was proper in all respects.  

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.

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 concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his discharge was based on a single incident which was the result of being drunk.  However, this claim is not supported by either the evidence of record or the independent evidence submitted by the applicant.  The evidence shows that the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history and record of misconduct that contributed to his being processed for discharge.  

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s good post service conduct, as attested to in the letters submitted in support of his request.  However, this factor alone does not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade to the discharge under review.  In addition, the Board found that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.

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 the aforementioned 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

__mvt___  __ewl___  ___ew___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029397	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1957/11/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.