MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 February 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015461

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He joined the Army at an early age, at a time when men were leaving for Canada rather than serving the country.  His record was not bad.  He was only one month short of completing his 3-year enlistment.

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

He was born on 29 May 1945.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 May 1962. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 140.00 (Basic Field Artilleryman).

Between June 1963 and November 1964, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment on seven occasions for offenses such as absenting himself from his place of duty; failing to go to his place of duty; failing to be present for bed check; and unlawfully violating leave and pass policy.

On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant accepted counsel, requested that his case be heard by a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 22 December 1964, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation.  He was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder (pathological personality type), schizoid personality.  He was found to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, able of understanding the nature of the board process, and had no physical or mental defect warranting medical separation.

On 12 February 1965, a board was held.  The applicant’s only testimony was an unsworn statement:  “I would just like to say that I would like to stay in the service.”  The board recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness and given an undesirable discharge.

On 8 March 1965, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to separate the applicant for unfitness, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities, and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 23 April 1965, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 10 months and 21 days of creditable active service and had 1 day of lost time. 
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  

Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation that sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent parts, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

On 26 February 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general under honorable conditions.

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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The characterization of service given was appropriate considering his record of service.

3.  The ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general under honorable conditions.  The reasoning behind the ADRB’s decision is not available; presumably that Board took cognizance of the fact the applicant was so close to his normal expiration term of service at the time of his discharge.

4.	This Board notes that despite the applicant’s age, he had over one year of creditable active service before his first Article 15.  He knew right from wrong and was able to adhere to the right as evidenced by this service and by the results of the psychiatric evaluation.

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

__JAL___  __AAO___  __VBC___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015461	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19650423	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.