MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030446

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 to an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young, immature and had a drinking problem at the time of the incident that resulted in his being discharged.  He states that he was with another soldier who took a jeep from the motor pool and they were later involved in an accident.  He further states that after the jeep accident he also went AWOL twice.  He states that he was punished for his involvement in the jeep accident and he spent 2 weeks in the stockade for going AWOL.  He believes that if the President could pardon the draft dodgers, his discharge should be upgraded because he did not desert his country.  In support of his appeal, he submits notarized letters from the Reverend of his church, his sister, two of his sons, his daughter and his father all attesting to his good     post-service conduct.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

He enlisted in the Army at age 17 for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a heavy weapons infantryman.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 23 January 1957, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits and traits of character, and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had served 1 year and 6 months of total active service and had 99 days of lost time.

There is no evidence in the available records that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character that rendered them unfit for military service.  Separation under this regulation required a medical examination by a physician training in psychiatry.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age and his good post-service conduct; neither of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

3.  The available records clearly show that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits and traits of character that rendered in unfit for military service.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.

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

___ja___  __tsk____  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030446	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1957/01/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	731	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100/A71.00	
2.  715	144.7200/A72.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.