MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065653

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his UD was the result of his suffering from  undetected learning disorder, alcoholism and depression that impaired his judgment and impaired his ability to serve.  Because he was unable to accomplish assigned tasks he was harassed, mistreated, ridiculed, and mocked by the rest of the guys.  He claims that he was robbed several times and that, he was often physically abused, knocked down, thrown around, kicked, punched, and beaten, which contributed to his alcoholism.  He states that if the Army had tested him for his disability and offered support, he would have received an HD instead of an UD.  In support of his application, he submits the enclosed personal statement, six letters of support attesting to his excellent character and good post service conduct, a marriage certificate, a certificate of death of his wife, and his separation document (DD Form 214).

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

On 25 March 1957, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 130.00
(Armor Crewman) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

The applicant’s record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure.  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following six separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  2 April 1958, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 
31 March to 1 April 1958; 30 July 1958, for missing bed check and for being AWOL from 29 to 30 July 1958; 31 January 1959, for being AWOL on 
31 January 1959; 2 February 1959, for missing bed check; 11 February 1959, for being AWOL on 11 February 1959; and 16 February 1959, for being AWOL on 15 February 1959.

On 13 March 1959, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of breaking restriction and being AWOL on 4 March 1959.  In addition, on 13 May 1959, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL on 
24 April 1959, resisting lawful apprehension by a military policeman, and breaking restriction.  

On 14 May 1959, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  The commander stated that the reasons for the action were the applicant’s being a repeated source of trouble within the unit, his numerous involvement in minor infractions of regulations and directives, and his showing no improvement in attitude or performance of duty.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification, waived his right to counsel, waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 28 May 1959, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant receive an UD and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 20 June 1959, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 
4 days of creditable active service and had accrued 23 days of time lost due to AWOL.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of misconduct.  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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the contention of the applicant that his discharge should be upgraded based on his suffering from disabilities, which resulted in his being abused by his fellow soldiers, and that contributed to the misconduct that resulted in his discharge.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim of abuse.  The Board also carefully considered his overall record of service and the supporting letters he provided attesting to his post service good conduct, but finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 

2.   The Board is satisfied that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time, and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Finally, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and was appropriate given his extensive disciplinary history and undistinguished record of service.

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

__WTM__  __CLG__  __RKS___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065653	
SUFFIX		
RECON	2002/04/02	
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19590620	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 6235-208 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0039	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.