MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057637

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  No contention submitted.

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

On 30 August 1962, with parental consent the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 711.20 (Clerk Typist). 

On 3 July 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to repair.  His imposed punishment was 2 hours extra duty for 6 days.

On 23 July 1963, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to repair on 20 July 
1963 and on 22 July 1963.  His imposed punishment was 2 hours extra duty per day for 7 days.

On 1 August 1963, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to repair on 31 July 1963 and on 1 August 1963.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 4 October 1963, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17-30 September 1963.  He
was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, 14 days restriction and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

The applicant’s record shows that on 28 October 1963, he was released into the custody of the civil authorities.  He was charged with contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor.  The applicant’s record also shows that the charges against the applicant were dismissed.  However, the dismissal was not from lack of evidence but merely upon a weighing of other factors.

On 21 November 1963, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to repair on 
19 November 1963 and for being AWOL from 20 – 23 November 1963.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $10.00 pay.

On 21 January 1964, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $10.00 pay and reprimanded for unsoldierly conduct.

On 26 January 1964, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was 2 hours extra duty for 7 days.

On 6 February 1964, the applicant was convicted by a SCM of being AWOL from 
31 January to 3 February 1964 and for disobeying a lawful order.  He was sentenced to 30 days restriction and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 5 March 1964, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil/military authorities and an established pattern of shirking).  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant requested representation of counsel and he requested to appear before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 9 March 1964, the commander’s recommendation to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was approved by the first endorsement from the Commanding Officer, Fort Sheridan, Fort Sheridan, Illinois.  The endorsement also noted the applicant’s desire to appear before a board of officers.

On 9 April 1964, the board of officers convened and after considering all the evidence that was submitted, found the applicant unfit for further service and recommended an undesirable discharge.

On 16 April 1964, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

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 as 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; and established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

On 6 May 1964, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year, 6 months and 10 days of creditable active service.

On 25 July 1969, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge.

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 this 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.

3.  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

__jhl___  __mdm___  __jam___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057637	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011011	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640506	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.