MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 February 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075520

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the discharge was unfair because of the arbitrary and capricious action of an officer involved in his case.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 22 December 1958.  He was 20 years and 3 months old and had an 8th grade education.  He completed 6 months of service and training as an infantryman with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

The applicant was twice convicted by special court-martial of AWOL offenses and received unsatisfactory ratings.  On 25 June 1960 he appeared, with counsel, before a board of officers that was convened to consider whether he should be eliminated from the service.  The Board considered the applicant's record and heard testimony from his chain of command to the effect that he required very close supervision and had been counseled many times by his various leaders.  He just did not seem to care about the quality of his duty performance.  He had the same difficulty under several different supervisors.  He had not asked for a transfer.  

The applicant testified in his own behalf that he had been in the company for about a year.  He did not feel that he had been picked-on.  He liked the Army, but the airborne had failed to meet his expectations.  He had not asked for a transfer because he had been told that he would suffer reprisals.  Although he liked jumping, if he had a chance to terminate, he would do so. 

The board of officers recommended separation for unfitness with an undesirable discharge and the separation authority approved that recommendation.  On 27 June 1960 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  He had 1 year and 5 months of creditable service and 37 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and that rehabilitation was impracticable or that reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking.  The regulation precluded the setting of arbitrary 

standards, such as a certain number of courts-martial convictions, as a prerequisite to administrative elimination.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances, a general or honorable discharge was authorized.

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 light of his testimony at the board of officers, his current assertion fails to demonstrate an error or injustice in the discharge.

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.  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

__MHM__  __CLG__  _RJW____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075520	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600627	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A94.11	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.