MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034590

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time he was not afforded the opportunity to receive the hardship discharge he requested and that at the time he went AWOL his family was having severe problems on the farm.  He further states that his father was seriously ill and his brother was burned up in a fire.  There was no one else to run the farm and he tried the chain of command and chaplain and was told no.  He goes on to state that his commander led him to believe that he could take leave later but kept putting him off so he went AWOL.  He continues by stating that he is very sick now and just wants to clear his name. He also states that he has led a productive life and is asking for a humanitarian decision from the Board.  In support of his application he submits a newspaper article, five letters of support from third parties, and a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214).   

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows:

The applicant enlisted in Charlotte, North Carolina on 22 June 1950 for a period of 3 years.  He served overseas for 1 year, 7 months and 14 days and he was reduced to the pay grade of E-1 on 26 August 1954. 

On 30 November 1954 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions at Fort Lewis, Washington under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness based on habits rendering retention in the service as undesirable.  He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days of total active service and had 612 days of lost time.  He had no decorations or awards.

The newspaper article submitted by the applicant with his application shows three of his brothers who were serving in the armed forces, one of who was killed in an explosion at an Army Air Corps Airfield in Arizona, one was wounded in the first wave in Normandy and was hospitalized in England, and one was in the Navy somewhere in the Pacific.  A handwritten note is on the back of the article indicating that eight of nine brothers served in the military during World War II (WWII) and Korea and that the ninth brother was classified as 4-F due to a deformed right hand.  There were also two sisters in the family as well.

A letter from the applicant’s sister indicates, in effect, that she was the closest sibling to the applicant in a family of 11 children who were reared by loving parents during WWII and Korea.  She states that at the time that the applicant was serving his country during the Korean War, their younger brother was burned in an accident on the farm to the extent that he received third degree burns over 90% of his body, another brother was killed in an explosion in Arizona, a brother was seriously wounded on Normandy Beach, their mother was losing her health (diabetes, high blood pressure, varicose veins, and a heart attack), and their father’s health was deteriorating as well.  She goes on to state that the applicant was needed at home to run the farm and that he has always been a kind person who always helped others. 

A letter from a neighbor at the time the applicant resided in North Carolina indicates that the applicant was needed at home at the time to run the farm because of the hardships the family was experiencing at the time.

Another letter from a neighbor in North Carolina also indicates that the applicant’s presence was needed at the time due to the hardships the family was facing at the time and indicates that the father had severe arthritis at the time.

A fourth letter from a pastor in North Carolina indicates that the applicant needed a hardship discharge because he was needed at home to run the farm due to the father’s bad health.

A fifth statement from an accountant/bookkeeper in Texas indicates that the applicant has always met his obligations and that he is of good moral character.

There is no indication that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  A board of officers was usually convened to determine is such a discharge was warranted and 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate even given the limited information contained in the available records.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and the Board is sympathetic to the circumstances he has described through the evidence submitted with his application.  However, the passage of time (46 years) and the lack of records to verify exactly what happened in his case make it difficult at best to determine if an error or injustice occurred.  Therefore, given the extensive amount of lost time that he amassed during a time of armed conflict and his otherwise undistinguished record of service, the Board must presume that what the Army did at the time was proper.

4.  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.

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

___cs___  __ls ____  ___jps___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034590	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1954/11/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	731	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  731 	144.7900/A79.00/unfit H&T	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.