MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           30 March 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033939

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  No contention submitted. 

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 reconstructed personnel records.

On 27 August 1954, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.  His military occupational specialty 910.00 (Medical Corpsman). 

On 22 September 1955, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of striking a sentinel and for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 23 January 1956, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of willfully disobeying a lawful order, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 1 day and for breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 
6 months and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 21 September 1956, the applicant again was convicted by a SPCM of being disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a forfeiture of $65.00 pay per month for 6 months.  

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 28 September 1956, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness and that he be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s undesirable habits and traits and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  

On 9 October 1956, the applicant appeared before a board of officers with counsel.  The board found the applicant unfit for further retention in the military service because of habits and traits of character that show an incapacity to become a satisfactory soldier and recommended that he be discharged from service because of unfitness with an undesirable discharge.

On 12 October 1956, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 16 November 1956, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 
1 year, 6 months and 18 days of creditable active service and 242 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC 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.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__bje___  __hof___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033939	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000330	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19561116	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.