MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  20 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023272

	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. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr.  		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 (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he submits a record of the personal appearance proceedings before the Army Discharge Review Board, dated 18 April 1963, that show he had intense personal problems at the time of his discharge.  He also submitted a character reference letter in support of his request.

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

The applicant successfully completed two prior honorable periods of service in the Regular Army from 19 June 1952 -through 15 March 1955 and from 16 March
1955 through 26 January 1958.  On 27 January 1958, he reenlisted for 6 years, military occupational specialty (MOS) 130 Basic Armor and pay grade E-5.  

The applicant's conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent from June 1952 through July 1957.  Between August 1957 and July 1960, his ratings declined and fluctuated between good and unsatisfactory.  However, during this time period, he did receive excellent efficiency and conduct ratings twice.

On 6 February 1958, while the applicant was on reenlistment leave, he was apprehended by military police, at Fort Knox, Kentucky and charged with being drunk in a public place.  On approximately 21 February 1958 (the exact date is not a matter of record), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against him.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-4.

On 17 April 1958, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer and for being absent from his appointed place of duty (16 April 1958).  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, hard labor without confinement for 30 days and forfeiture of pay.  Prior to this NJP he had been reduced from pay grade E-4 to E-3, and from pay grade E-3 to E-2, however, the basis for the reductions are not a matter of record.

Between October 1959 and April 1960, the applicant accepted five additional NJP's.  He was charged with being drunk and disorderly on three separate occasions: on 
10 October 1959; 14 February 1960; and 15 April 1960; he also accepted an NJP on
31 December 1959, for being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer and for being drunk and disorderly.  On 10 March 1960, he accepted an NJP for wearing an unauthorized uniform.  His punishments included reductions from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2 (twice) and extra duty.  

On 8 March 1960, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have no psychological disease.  It was determined that he was rational, oriented, coherent and he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The recommendation was that he continue his duties until the command determined whether he should be retained on active duty.

On 17 March 1960, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the applicant.  On 
4 May 1960, the bar to reenlistment was approved. 

On 4 June 1960, the commander recommended that a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for determining whether the applicant should be discharged for unsuitability before the expiration of his term of service.

On 8 June 1960, the applicant authenticated a statement, with his own signature, in which he acknowledged that he understood the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He stated that he had been counseled and did not desire further legal representation.  He also waived a consideration of his case before a board of officers.  In a statement submitted in his own behalf, he claimed that he had straightened out his personal problems and should be allowed to remain on active duty.

On 9 June 1960, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability, by reason of a character and behavior disorder. 

On 12 July 1960, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
2 years, 5 months and 16 days on the enlistment under review and he had completed a total of 8 years and 24 days of active military service.

On 23 April 1963, in a personal appearance before the Army Discharge Review Board, the applicant was denied an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time set forth the basic policy, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unsuitable for further service by reason of a character and behavior disorder.  Under this regulation and paragraph the appropriate authority could approve an honorable or a general discharge.

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 documents the applicant submitted provided no basis for the upgrade of the discharge under reviewed. 

3.  A professionally trained psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible and he has submitted no probative evidence to the contrary.

4.  Even though the applicant successfully completed two honorable periods of service, his misconduct and poor duty performance between January 1958 and July 1960, diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge for the period of enlistment under review. 

5.  The applicant was properly separated in accordance with regulations then in effect and there is no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

6.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request under current standards.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023272	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600712	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-209  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Request upgrade to HD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.