MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 July 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031539

	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. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 an honorable discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was only 19 years old at the time of his discharge more than 40 years ago.  He submits a statement that he submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He also submits two letters of character reference and a DD Form 714 (Meal Card) in support of his request.  The character references indicates that he displays sound values, and that he is a responsible, hardworking, honest, loyal, caring person who helps others. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The majority of his military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  The records used in this review are based on partially reconstructed personnel records and an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, dated 
15 May 1981.

The available records indicate that he completed airborne training in 1957 at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 
111.07 (Infantryman).

On 5 September 1958, he underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was found to suffer from passive aggressive reaction, chronic, severe, manifested by undesirable habits and traits of character that existed prior to enlisting in the service.  An administrative discharge was recommended.

The ADRB Case Report and Directive shows that on 5 September 1958, the applicant was discharged as a result of a board action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, due to unfitness because of undesirable habits and traits with a UD.  He had served for 1 year at the time of his discharge, but the exact dates are not known.  Neither the specific facts that led up to the board action nor the board proceedings are a matter of record.  His records also do not contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

On 15 May 1981, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for administrative separation for unfitness (undesirable habits and traits).  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.

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 this requirement.

2.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young at the time of his discharge.  However, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.  He has submitted no evidence to the contrary.

3.  The Board notes that not all of the facts and circumstances concerning the applicant’s board action is a matter of record.  However, he would have been required to consult with legal counsel, he would have been informed of the rights available to him and he would have had the opportunity to appear before the board with counsel. 

4.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  

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

6.  While the applicant’s post service adjustment appears to be highly satisfactory, this fact alone does not overcome his discharge for unfitness in 1958.

7.  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:

__tsk___  __sk_____  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jhk____  _______  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031539	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200007025	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19580905	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.