MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 December 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075682

	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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He contends that he was told that he could file to have his discharge upgraded within six months after his discharge.  He further states that he has never filed for an upgrade and he hopes that he may be able to straighten this out.  He also states that he was young and he did not realize the importance of seeking an upgrade.

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

On 29 October 1963, the applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army for 
3 years.  On 10 March 1964, the applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 11 March 1964 for 3 years.  

On 23 June 1964, while assigned to a unit located in Gablingen, Germany, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty.

Between 15 March 1965 through 1 April 1965. the applicant accepted 3 NJPs for disobeying a lawful order from superior non-commissioned officer, for failure to repair to appointed place of duty, and for failure to repair for extra duty.  His punishments included a forfeiture of $23.00 pay for 1 month, reduction to E-2, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 28 April 1965, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.

On 3 May 1965 the applicant accepted NJP for being absent without leave from his place of duty.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $23.00 pay for 1 month and 14 days restriction and extra duty. 

On 21 May 1965, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, unfitness.  The commander's recommendation was based on the applicant's constant disciplinary actions, refusal to adapt to military life, and his negative attitude.  

A mental status evaluation and a separation medical examination found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  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 15 June 1965, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 12 July 1965, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulations for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 1 year, 
8 months and 14 days of creditable active service.

On 3 December 1965, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 considered the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge from an undesirable discharge to a general discharge.

2.  The Board reviewed the applicant's service records, which included five NJPs.

3.  The Board also considered the contention that he could file to have his discharge upgraded within six months after his separation from the Army.

4.  The Board noted that there is no evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence, that the Army has ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade
discharges.  The Army Discharge Review Board and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records reviews each request for a discharge upgrade on its own merits.  Upgrade of a discharge may be warranted only if it is determined that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  

5.  Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge.  The Board also determined the applicant's service was not satisfactory; therefore, he did not meet the criteria for a general discharge

6.  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.

7.  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

___LLS__  ___BJE _  __WDP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075682	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1965/07/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.