MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034773

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that he has been punished long enough and that his 11 years of service warrant an upgrade. 

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

On 30 October 1958, he was honorably separated from active duty, in the rank of private/E-2, after having completed 3 years of honorable service.  In addition, he served an additional 5 years and 9 months of honorable active duty, between 
17 November 1958 and 19 August 1964, just prior to his immediate reenlistment. The applicant had attained the rank of specialist/E-5 during this period of service but had been reduced in rank to specialist/E-4 in June 1964, the rank he held at the time of his reenlistment on 20 August 1964, which began the period of service under review.

The applicant’s record for the period of service under review documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does, however, contain an extensive disciplinary history which includes the applicant’s trial and conviction by a special court-martial and by summary court-martial on three separate occasions.

On 6 January 1965, the applicant was tried and convicted by summary 
court-martial of two specifications of AWOL.  His sentence included a reduction in rank to private first class/E-3.  

On 17 July 1965, he was again tried and convicted by summary court-martial.  This time for two specifications of AWOL and for driving a privately owned vehicle without a valid driver’s license.  The resultant sentence included 30 days of hard labor without confinement; a reduction in rank to private/E-1; and a forfeiture of $30.00.  

On 21 October 1965, the applicant was again tried and convicted by summary court-martial.  This time for two specifications of AWOL, which resulted in his being sentenced to forfeit $25.00.  

On 17 December 1965, the applicant was tried and convicted of being AWOL by special court-martial.  The resultant sentence for this offense included a reduction in rank to private/E-1 and a forfeiture of $35.00 per month for 4 months.

The available service record does not included a separation packet containing all the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the specific events which led to the applicant’s discharge.  However, the record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), signed by the applicant.  This document verifies that the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

The DD Form 214 also shows that the applicant was discharged with an UD on 
5 January 1966.  At the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 13 days of his current enlistment; a total of 9 years, 11 months, and 13 days of active military service; and he had accrued a total of 64 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

The record contains a determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which grants the applicant credit for a complete and unconditional discharge for his first enlistment.  This provides justification for him to receive the associated veterans benefits.

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, within the 15 year statute of limitations, to request an upgrade to his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the policy and procedure of the separation of enlisted personnel.  It specifically provided, in pertinent part, for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued an UD.

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he has been punished long enough and that his overall record of service warrants his discharge being upgraded, but concluded these factors did not provide a basis for relief.  

2.  The record contains documentation from the VA that verifies the applicant has retained his entitlement to veterans benefits based on his first period of honorable service.  This alleviates the necessity for this Board to consider an upgrade to the discharge under review in order to provide the applicant benefits earned based on his prior honorable service.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there was no injustice suffered as a result of the loss of previously earned veterans benefits. 
3.  While the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events that led to the discharge under review, the Board did note that there was a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file, which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  

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

__ewl___  __rvo ___  ___jhk___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034773	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1966/01/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.