MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064447

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge or an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he made a mistake and that at the time of the decision, he was not privy to some of the information that could have made a difference in his choice.  The applicant states, that had he undergone a psychiatric examination, the psychiatrist would have recommended that he appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army regulation 635-209 for unsuitability.  
	
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 31 January 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of
3 years.  His military occupational specialty was 630.00 (Automotive Maintenance Helper).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 23 July 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was 7 days restriction and extra duty.

Between June 1963 and January 1965, the applicant was convicted by three summary courts-martial of three specifications of being absent without leave from 3 to 13 July 1963, from 12 to 25 May 1964 and from 9 to 19 January 1965 and for one specification of being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer.  His sentenced included confinements, forfeitures and a reduction to pay grade E-2.

On 27 January 1965, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist.  The applicant was diagnosed has having a long-standing character behavior disorder of the passive aggressive type with an emotionally unstable personality.  The applicant was found mentally responsible able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any board proceedings.  There were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant consideration by a Physical Evaluation Board or other disposition through medical channels.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 with a view to separate from the military service because of unsuitability.     

On 1 February 1965, the company commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, due to his frequent acts of misconduct with military authorities. Continued efforts by the commanding officer, chaplains and noncommissioned officers failed to produce successful results of rehabilitation.  Further attempts for rehabilitation would unlikely succeed.  

On the same day, the Battalion Commander, recommended that the applicant be separated under the provision of AR-635-208.  Action under Army Regulation 635-209 that was recommended by the Chief, Mental Hygiene Consultation Service was not considered appropriate due to the applicant’s numerous acts of misconduct.  The Battalion Commander believed that elimination as an undesirable was the best interest of the service.  

The applicant was advised by his commanding officer that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness.  The applicant was counseled and advised by the commanding officer of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  .  He was furnished a copy of the commanding officer’s report and copies of statements submitted to support the recommendation for discharge.  He was given names of prospective witnesses that were to appear or submit statements that were to be used against the applicant.  After have been afforded the opportunity of requesting counsel, he declined the opportunity.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  

On 25 February 1965, the Commanding General approved the discharge from service under the provision of Army regulation 635-208, for unfitness with an Undesirable Desirable Discharge Certificate.  On 26 February 1965, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 29 days of creditable active service and 62 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 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 the aforementioned requirement.
2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted.  However, the evidence of record shows that the applicant exhibited an unacceptable pattern of misconduct. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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__  __RWA__  __HBO___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064447	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1965/02/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.5000		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.