MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           3 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999014574

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that he believes the UD that he received has served its purpose.  He has paid the penalty for the mistakes that he made as a teenager.

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

On 10 March 1953, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years at age 
17 with a declaration of parental or legal guardian consent signed by both of his parents.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.00 (Rifleman).  

On 8 November 1954, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and of assault of another soldier.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of pay.

On 11 June 1955, the applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and remained AWOL until civil authorities in Clayton, Georgia apprehended him and returned him to military control on 17 June 1955.

On 29 June 1955, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  It was determined that he was physically and mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.  He was found to have no physical or mental disability.  

On 30 June 1955, the applicant was notified that a Board of Officers would meet on 1 July 1955 to determine his suitability for retention or discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.

On 30 June 1955, the applicant authenticated a statement, with his own signature, in which he stated that he did not desire to call witnesses, that he would comply with the date and time of the board and that he declined further legal representation.

On 1 July 1955, the applicant appeared before the Board without counsel and stated that he did not desire to be represented by counsel, he also declined to make a statement in his own behalf.  The Board proceedings revealed that the applicant had been repeatedly counseled for being tardy for formations, for failure to repair and about his attitude.  He had also been counseled for being picked up downtown by military police for being out of uniform. 
On 1 July 1955, the board unanimously found the applicant unfit for military service, due to habits or traits of character manifested by misconduct, and recommended that he be discharged with a UD.

On 6 July 1955, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of habits or traits of character manifested by misconduct. 

On 12 July 1955, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 1 year, 
11 months and 12 days of creditable active service.  He also had 141 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.

Evidence of record does not show that the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time set forth the basic policy, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further service by reason of habits or traits of character manifested by misconduct.  Under this regulation a UD was 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 applicant has provided no evidence to demonstrate an error or injustice in the adjudication of his case.  The applicant declined legal representation prior to the Board proceeding and during Board proceedings.  He was also given an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf to the Board, and he declined.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Additionally, 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.

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 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

__fne___  __esc___  __sk____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014574	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991103	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19550712	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.10	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7110	
2.	144.9301	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.