MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 April 2002                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062664

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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, under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his inability to read and write well caused conflict with his fellow soldiers.  He always performed well in field exercises, but got in trouble when he was in the garrison.  He also states that he served his country the best he could and believes that service to have been honorable.  He submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) in support of his request.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States as a private, pay grade E-1, on 8 November 1961.

He attained the rank of pay grade E-3 on 19 July 1962.

On 3 June 1962, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to repair for bed check.  His punishment was 14 days restriction.

On 2 August 1962, he was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absent without leave (AWOL) and violation of a lawful regulation, to wit: “Off Limits.”  He was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, hard labor without confinement for 30 days and forfeiture of pay.  

On 9 October 1962, he was convicted by SCM of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of pay.

On 6 December 1962, he was convicted by SCM of AWOL and being drunk and disorderly.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of pay.

On 11 December 1962, he was barred from reenlistment.

The applicant was referred to the psychiatric clinic for evaluation.  

A psychiatric evaluation dated 11 December 1962, states the applicant’s military adjustment as reported by the individual and his unit, had been marginal as the applicant had received three summary courts-martial and one Article 15 for AWOL since June 1962.  All of these violations had in some way been associated with a chronic drinking problem.   

The evaluation found that the applicant was not insane, that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, and he was considered mentally responsible for his acts.  The applicant was cleared from a psychiatric viewpoint for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command.

On 9 January 1963, his commander recommended him for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability, emotional immaturity with resort to alcoholism as relief from the demands of Army life.

On 11 January 1963, after declining counsel, the applicant acknowledged his proposed elimination from the service and waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 11 January 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation for unsuitability and directed that a General Discharge Certificate be furnished. 

He was separated on 18 January 1963, with a general discharge, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He had a total of 1 year and 18 days net active service.  He also had 54 days lost time.

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

Army Regulation 635-209, then in effect, established the policy and provided procedures for prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service.  It specified that action will be taken to discharge an individual when it is clearly established that it is unlikely the individual will develop sufficiently to participate in further military service and/or become a satisfactory soldier, or the individual’s psychiatric or physical condition is such as not to warrant discharge for disability.

Past and current regulations provide that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 inappropriate.

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 is not entitled to upgrade of his general discharge, under honorable conditions to honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  His contentions have been noted; however, there is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided any, that his discharge was based on an inability to read and write well, or was in error or unjust.  His records clearly show that his medical evaluation concluded he possessed sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right and wrong.  His records clearly reflect that it was unlikely he would become a satisfactory soldier and well documented he received proper consideration for this discharge. 

3.  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.

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

_ra_____  _kyf___  __rwa___       DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062664	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020404	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.