MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063818

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have been given a general discharge because his wife was ill and the Army would not allow him to go home.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 1 April 1960.  He was ordered to active duty for training on 16 April 1960 and was honorably released from active duty on 15 October 1960 and returned to State Control as a member of the Army National Guard.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 12 January 1961, served as an artillery operations and intelligence assistant and was honorably discharged on 16 March 1961 to immediately enlist in the Regular Army.  He reenlisted on 17 March 1961 for a period of 3 years.  

On 7 July 1961, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) on two separate occasions (from 22 May 1961 to 25 May 1961 and from 1 June 1961 to 11 June 1961, as shown on his charge sheet).  His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for 1 month, to be reduced to E-1 and to forfeit $25 for 1 month.  On 10 July 1961, the convening authority approved the sentence.

The applicant’s Service Record shows that he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 11 June 1961.

The discharge processing documents are not present in the available records.  However, information contained in the applicant’s Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings indicate that on 17 July 1961 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  The unit commander recommended that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge and based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s two incidents of AWOL, one drop from rolls as a deserter, one period of confinement and one court-martial conviction.

On 23 July 1961, the applicant waived a hearing by a board of officers, declined counsel and did not submit a statement on his own behalf.

The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge.   

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 31 July 1961 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 27 days of total active service with 64 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.  
  
The ADRB denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade on 13 August 1962.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Section II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one summary court-martial conviction and 64 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  The applicant failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

5.  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.

6.  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____  TSK_____  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063818	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020110	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19610731	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.