MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12249
                                              AR1999015205

	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	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it has come to his attention that it is possible to receive an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.  He further states he has successfully completed 36 years of employment with the Montgomery Wards Company and is retired.  His wife, who has recently passed away, requested that he try to clear his blemished record.  He contends that during his second enlistment in the Army he had a problem with drinking which got worse and caused him to go AWOL.

In support of his application he provides copies of his General Discharge Certificate, Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 214, birth certificate, statement from the Kansas City Police Department, letter from the commanding general, and letters of recommendation Montgomery Wards Company personnel.

COUNSEL STATES:  That the Board consider the report of psychiatric evaluation of 9 August 1956, wherein the applicant is described as being emotionally immature.  Counsel contends that this life long history of immaturity led to passive-aggressive reactions causing his impulsive behavior and interpersonal relationships which could have contributed to his misconduct.  Counsel further points out that all of the witnesses appearing before the board of officers stated they would like to have him in their unit.  The applicant had prior lengthy creditable wartime service and the undesirable discharge was too harsh in light of his overall record.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 4 February 1951 for 3 years and was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 January 1954 completing 2 years, 11 months and 9 days of creditable active service.  During this period of service he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, and the Korean Service Medal.

He enlisted in the Army on 23 March 1954 for 6 years as a field artilleryman.  

On 5 August 1954 the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of AWOL (2 days).  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $60.00 and restriction for 30 days.

On 15 February 1955 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of AWOL (3 days).  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $50.00 and restriction for 30 days.

On 8 April 1955 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of carelessly discharging a carbine in the base post office.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $60.00 and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.

On 9 December 1955 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for dereliction of duty.  The punishment included 4 days restriction.

On 13 July 1956 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of AWOL (7 days).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months

On 9 August 1956 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  The psychiatrist found the applicant suffering from passive-aggressive reaction, chronic, moderate, manifested by frequent resort to AWOL, impulsive behavior, and impaired interpersonal relationships.  There was no indication of a psychotic reaction nor, indeed, of a significant psychoneurotic pattern, but rather he presented the finding of a grossly immature, inadequate individual.  The psychiatrist found the applicant free from disabling mental disease, defect or derangement and able to distinguish right from wrong, adhere to the right, understand the nature of his offense, and cooperate with counsel in his own defense.

On 20 August 1956 a board of officers convened, considered the evidence of record and heard testimony from witnesses and the applicant.  All of the witnesses indicated that the applicant was a good soldier and that they would like to have him in their unit.  The applicant made no direct statement, but his counsel commented that the applicant was an excellent soldier and would be an asset to the Army if permitted to remain with his current unit.  However, if assigned to another unit he would most likely go AWOL again.  The board of officers recommended that the applicant be retained in the service.

On 6 September 1956 the board of officers again convened to examine the facts and determine whether or not the applicant should be discharged from the military service.  The acting battery commander of the applicant’s unit testified that he had known the applicant for 8 months and rated him as a very good soldier.  However, in view of his record, he did not think it was wise to take him overseas with his unit.  The applicant elected not to make a statement to the board of officers.  The board of officers found that the applicant demonstrated behavior which tended to show he was not reliable or trustworthy and recommended he be discharged immediately.

On 19 September 1956 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged on 16 October 1956.  He completed 5 years, 2 months and 13 days of creditable active service and had 112 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 2 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, serves as the current authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for acts or patterns of misconduct involving discreditable involvement with military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  It states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for discharge under this chapter.

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 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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s previous discharge under honorable conditions and good post service work since his last discharge are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant upgrade of his last discharge from the Army.

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

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12249/AR1999015205	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990414	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19561016	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-208  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.