MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           31 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031363

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD), that the reason and authority be changed to for the convenience of the government and that his Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to RE-1, essentially that he be eligible for immediate reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his age and level of maturity affected his ability to serve.  For the past 15 years, he has worked hard to repair the damage that was caused by his alcoholism, dysfunctional behavior and immaturity.  He has suffered many years as a result of receiving a UD, and believes that the adverse effect of the UD has become an injustice. 

COUNSEL STATES:  Counsel makes no additional contentions.

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

On 24 November 1958, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years at age 18.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman).

The applicant was convicted by two summary courts-martial of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  On 11 February 1959, he was found guilty of being AWOL from 2-5 February 1959.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $52.00 pay.  On 8 January 1960, he was found guilty of being AWOL on 
3 January 1960.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $60.00 pay and restriction.  

The applicant was also convicted by two special courts-martial of violating the UCMJ.  On 17 February 1960, he was found guilty of breaking restriction and of failure to go to formation on 15 April 1960.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months and to forfeit $55.00 pay per month for 2 months.  On 
15 April 1960, he was found guilty of being AWOL from 29 February-2 March 1960, of being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and of failure to go to formation on 9 March 1960.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $55.00 pay per month for 6 months. 

On 16 April 1960, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have a schizoid personality that existed prior to service.  His motivation and attitude towards the service were determined to be defective and progressively deteriorating.  There were no defects of orientation, intelligence, or judgement.  He had the mental capacity to participate in Board proceedings.  The recommendation was that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, unfitness.  

An undated Department of the Army Form 1049 (Personnel Action), shows that on an unknown date the applicant's commander recommended elimination for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  On an unknown date, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers; he also waived representation by counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 29 April 1960, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  

On 20 May 1960, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 
4 months and 24 days of active military service and he had 33 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.  At the time of discharge, the applicant was not assigned an RE Code, however, his DD Form 214 was marked “NEFIR” (not eligible for immediate reenlistment).

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for administrative separation for unfitness (misconduct).  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgement of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally issued.

Under current standards, a separation for misconduct (Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200) would result in the assignment of an RE–3.  This RE-Code is waivable based upon the needs of the 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.  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 Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young.  However, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the enlistment designator “NEFIR” is correct.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that the code is in error or should be changed.  

6.	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

__jev____  __sk___  __jpi_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031363	
SUFFIX		
RECON	20000608	
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600520	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.