MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030293

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since his discharge he has been a model citizen as well as being responsible for his family and to his community.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He was born on 27 August 1926.  He was inducted into the Army on 5 February 1952.  

Between March 1952 and November 1953, the applicant was convicted by three summary and two special courts-martial for being absent without leave (AWOL).

On 11 December 1953, the applicant was psychiatrically evaluated.  No evidence of psychosis or neurosis was found.  He was found to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to cooperate with counsel in his defense.  He was diagnosed with a behavior disorder.  

On 12 January 1954, the applicant appeared before a board of officers considering him for elimination from the service for unfitness.  The applicant made no statement to the board.  The board found evidence of habits and traits of character that rendered his retention in the Service undesirable.  The board recommended him for elimination for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.

On 29 January 1954, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.

On 5 February 1954, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade of E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-638 for unfitness.  He had completed       1 year, 1 month and 8 days of creditable active service and had 323 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 615-638, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability.  It established procedures for separating members who demonstrated they were totally unfit or unsuitable for further retention by giving evidence of habits or traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trends, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion or misconduct; unclean habits, including repeated venereal infections; repeatedly committed petty offenses not warranting trial by court martial; and habitual shirking, and for whom rehabilitation was considered impossible.  When discharge was for unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would be furnished.

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 the aforementioned 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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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

__jns___  __emw___  __jea___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030293	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000406	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19520205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-638 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A79.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.