MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065843

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has been a good citizen and volunteers at the Veterans Hospital in Sepulveda, California.  He goes on to state that while there has been no error or injustice, he desires to have his record cleaned up and also believes that being a good citizen and doing volunteer work is worth consideration.

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

He initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 5 August 1958 and served until he was honorably discharged on 11 February 1959, for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army.

He enlisted on 12 February 1959 for a period of 3 years and assignment to Europe.  He was transferred to Germany on 5 May 1959 and was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 5 June 1959.

On 15 July 1959, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for missing reveille formation.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.  NJP was again imposed against him on 1 August 1959 for missing bed check.  His punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty. 

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 18 September 1959 of being absent without leave (AWOL) on 10 September 1959.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended for 30 days) and a forfeiture of pay.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 5 November 1959 of being AWOL on 3 November 1959.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.

On 4 November 1959, he underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible, both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. 

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 10 November 1959 of failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and a forfeiture of pay.

On 10 November 1959, the commander also initiated a recommendation for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits or traits of character manifested by frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military and civil authorities.

A board of officers was convened at Wackerheim, West Germany on 27 November 1959, to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service.  The applicant was present and represented by counsel.  Testimony was given by the commander and the first sergeant to the effect that the applicant had been a constant source of problems since his arrival and despite numerous counseling sessions and attempts to turn him around, he simply would not respond.

The applicant gave testimony to the effect that he understood that he had a “care-less” type of attitude, that he knew it was wrong, but that he could not explain his actions or why he had such an attitude.  He also expressed a desire to stay in the Army and asserted that he believed that he could do better if given another chance.

The board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in military service because he gave evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct and he demonstrates behavior which tended to show that he was not reliable or trustworthy.  The board recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 

The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board and the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 January 1960, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits and traits of character.  He had served a total of 1 year, 4 months and 7 days of total active service and had 25 days of lost time.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute 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 that render them unfit for military service.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate, however, an honorable or general discharge could be issued.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.  However, his record of undistinguished service and disciplinary record does not warrant relief.

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

___mdm_  ___kak__  ___tl ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065843	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1960/01/08	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Undesirable H&T	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  731	144.7900/a79.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.