MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           28 FEBRUARY 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063402				

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.  Although the applicant indicates in his request that he received a Bad Conduct Discharge, in actuality he received an undesirable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have received an honorable discharge.  He notes that his discharge was not justified.  He states that he was “placed in [the] stockade at Camp Pickett, VA in 1952” and that at the time the military was discharging “all persons with BCD” by the hundreds and he was one of those individuals.  He states that he is now 71 years old and “want[s] what is due [him] as a hero and a patriot.”  He notes that he had service in Japan and Korea.  He also states that he attempted to upgrade his discharge in “the 70’s” but was told his records had been “burnt up.”  In support of his request he submits two letters recognizing him as the outstanding employee of the month for Pinkerton Security & Investigation Services, two letters indicating the applicant is a reliable and conscientious member of the community, and an undated news article in which he was recognized as the “Most Outstanding Fireman” for Baltimore City.  

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

He initially entered active duty in June 1948 and was, in effect, discharged on 
25 March 1952 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  His March 1952 DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) indicates that he received an honorable discharge at the time.

During the applicant’s initial period of active duty he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, an Army of Occupation Medal with “Japan” clasp, and a Korean Service Medal.

On 26 March 1952 the applicant reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  Between April 1952 and March 1954 the applicant accumulated more than 300 days of AWOL (absent without leave) time for which he was court-martialed on three different occasions.  

A board of officers convened in August 1954 to determine whether the applicant should be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.  A mental status evaluation noted the applicant was mentally competent and responsible for his acts.  The board noted that after being advised of his rights he “did not desire to make a statement.”  The board indicated that they had considered his prior service and his “medals.”  The board found "evidence of habits which rendered retention in the service undesirable because of unfitness" and recommended the applicant be discharged.  

The recommendation was approved and on 20 August 1954 the applicant was discharged and issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  His separation report indicates he was separated at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  At the time of his separation he had approximately 46 months of creditable service and more than 800 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included misconduct and repeated petty offenses.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Although historical files available to the Board indicate that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge in 1956, there is no record of any previous action by this Board.  Additionally, while the applicant’s records were partially destroyed by the 1973 fire in St. Louis, they were sufficiently salvaged and are readable.

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.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge proceedings were not conducted in accordance with established laws and regulations in effect at the time.  The separation board proceedings noted that the applicant was given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf and choose not to do so.  The Board also notes that his separation board considered his prior service and his medals prior to rendering their recommendation.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant had more than 2 years of lost time due to AWOL and confinement at the time of his separation and as such warranted the characterization of service he received.

3.  While the Board recognizes and commends the applicant for his contributions to his community since his separation, as well as his service in Japan and Korea, it does not, in and of itself, warrant the relief requested.

4.  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 that requirement.

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 _  __CLA      __JTM___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063402	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020228	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.