MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  13 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018124

	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. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		Member	
	Kenneth L. Wright		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 an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he feels that he should have been given a another chance instead of being discharged.  He is requesting the HD so that he can enter a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital.

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

On 18 January 1961, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  He was separated in military occupational specialty (MOS) 006.00 (trainee) because he never completed advanced individual training (AIT).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-1.

On 5 March 1961, while assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for basic training the applicant departed in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  He remained AWOL until 14 March 1961 when he was returned to military control at Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois.  He remained in confinement until 27 March 1961.

On 17 April 1961, the applicant was convicted by special court- martial for the aforementioned period of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months (suspended) and forfeiture of pay. 

On 20 April 1961, he was transferred to a new company and given a fresh start.  On 26 April 1961, he departed AWOL again and remained AWOL until 14 May 1961 when he was returned to military authorities in Chevanse, Illinois.  On
20 May 1961, the 17 April 1961 sentence was vacated and it was directed that the applicant be confined at the Fort Leonard Wood stockade.

On 15 June 1961, the applicant appeared before the Fort Leonard Wood Post Stockade Board for the purpose of being classified restorable or non-restorable to duty.  The Board determined that he was a very immature, irresponsible individual with no respect for anyone except himself.  He blamed his failure on the military members around him.  The Board was of the opinion that he would be of very little value if returned to duty.  The Board found him to be non-restorable and recommended elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  On 26 June 1961, the recommendation was sent to his commander for consideration.

On 3 July 1961, he was convicted by a second special court-martial for the 
26 April -15 May 1961 AWOL offense.  He was sentenced to an additional 
6-months confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of pay.

On 13 July 1961, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and the diagnosis indicated that he had no psychological disease.  He was diagnosed to be mentally responsible and able to tell right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

On 19 July 1961, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would meet to determine whether he should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 by reason of unfitness, and frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.  The applicant authenticated a statement with his signature in which he waived further representation by legal counsel and the right to have his case heard by a board of officers.  He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD and he declined to make a statement in his own behalf (the statement of waiver is undated).

The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a UD.  On 4 August 1961, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, and frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities with a UD.  He completed a total of 2 months, and 16 days of active military service and he had 123 days lost time due to being in AWOL and in confinement.

On two separate occasions the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  He was denied in September 1980 and in December 1981.  He was also denied a reconsideration of his case on several occasions because he failed to submit new pertinent evidence.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  At the time of the discharge 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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 then in effect with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The applicant was transferred to a new company and given a second chance after the first period of AWOL.  He departed AWOL the second time after being in the new company only 6 days.  He has provided no mitigating factors to substantiate a basis for the upgrade of his discharge.

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

RVO____  SC_____  KLW_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018124	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	13 May 1999	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19610804	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	For unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Request honorable discharge.	
2.	He feels he should have been given another chance. 	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.