MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            6 December 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063580

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was immature when he committed his indiscretions, which is substantiated by psychiatric examinations for which he was the subject while he was on active duty.  He explains that he was “lost” when his mother died and thought joining the service would block her memory.  However, he was very spoiled and immature, which resulted in his unfortunate actions.  He is very sorry for the way he acted, and had unsuccessfully attempted to atone for his behavior by reenlisting.  Since his discharge he has been a model citizen, husband, and father of an adopted daughter.  He has maintained a good job and has been active in local and state politics.

In support of his application he submits letters from his wife and from many people within his community.

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

He enlisted in 23 November 1953, and was awarded the military occupational specialty of cook.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 7 September 1954 of being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 25 July to 24 August 1954.  He was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial on 31 August 1955 of leaving his appointed place of duty.  He was convicted by a Special Court-Martial on 6 February 1956 of being AWOL from 9 to 28 January 1956.

On 18 June 1956, the applicant was given a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed as having emotional instability reactions, chronic, moderate, manifested by emotional liability, impulsive acts, repeated disciplinary infractions and emotional immaturity.  The diagnosing psychiatrist attested to the mental competency of the applicant and recommended that he be separated from the Army as unfit for future military duty.

On 5 July 1956, a board of officers was convened.  That board recommended that the applicant be separated due to unfitness and that he be given an undesirable discharge.  That recommendation was approved and the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness on 9 August 1956 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had 2 years, 3 months and 24 days of creditable service and 143 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included repeated petty offenses/frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities, sexual perversion, drug abuse, use of marijuana, and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant had frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities, as evidenced by his three court-martial convictions.  A board of officers was properly convened and determined that his pattern of indiscipline warranted separation due to unfitness and that his record of service warranted a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  There is no error or injustice evident in that scenario.

2.  The applicant asks the Board to consider his immaturity as a matter of mitigation.  In this regard, the Board must consider that the armed forces enlists soldiers as young as age 17.  Despite the youth of these soldiers, the military expects them to comply with lawful orders and regulations.  To excuse the applicant’s misconduct based on his immaturity would call into question the honorable and faithful service rendered by the multitude of young soldiers who have worn the uniform throughout the years.  It would appear that the applicant would not comply with the Army’s rules and regulations; not that he could not comply with them.

3.  The applicant has also asked the Board to upgrade his discharge based on his being a model citizen, husband, and father of an adopted daughter, and for maintaining a good job and being active in local and state politics.  In this regard, the Board cannot in good conscience recommend upgrading a properly issued discharge because a person is doing what is normally expected of a good citizen, husband, father and employee.  The fact that he is active in politics is also commendable, but insufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge.

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

___fne __  ____hbo _  ___tao __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AC2001063580	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011006	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.