PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           17 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077865

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  He also, requests that his separation document (DD Form 214) be changed to show his correct service number and his last duty assignment as D Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that the service number and the last duty assignment listed on his DD Form 214 are incorrect.  He states that his discharge was based on the recommendation of a board of officers as a result of his committing two absent without leave (AWOL) related offenses.  He states that his first AWOL incident was due to his first sergeant denying his request for advanced leave, and the second was after he was returned to a bad situation in the same unit after a period of confinement based on his first court-martial conviction.  He claims he obtained a bottle of whiskey and tried to drink his problems away and without thinking this led to his going AWOL the second time. The applicant indicates that in 1965 he appealed to Army Discharge Review Board requesting an upgrade to his discharge.  This was during the Vietnam Conflict and he had hoped to reenter the service to correct his mistakes; however, this appeal was denied.  He finally claims that he entered the Army only five days after turning 17 years of age, and he asks that the Board consider his age, lack or maturity, and limited amount of education at the time and grant the requested relief.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) and discharge orders.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that 29 August 1961, he entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 110.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

5.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following four separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  10 March 1962, for failure to obey a lawful order; 12 May 1962, for dereliction of his duties and failure to repair; 21 May1962, for sleeping on duty; and 8 December 1962, for being drunk in public and consuming alcohol as a minor.  He was also convicted by special court-martial on two separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  AWOL, from on or about 9 April 1963 to on or about 27 April 1963; and AWOL, from on or about 24 July 1963 to on or about 
29 July 1963.

6.  On 18 December 1963, the applicant was counseled and notified by his unit commander that action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  He acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification, waived his right to counsel, waived his right to appear before a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 14 November 1963, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, who directed that the applicant receive an UD.  On 
10 February 1964, the applicant was discharged from the Army accordingly after completing a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 23 days of creditable active military service, and having accrued a total of 265 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

8.  On 2 September 1965, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge.

9.  The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24) and Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) both confirm that the last unit he served in prior to his separation was Company A, 3rd Battalion, 8th Infantry, Fort Lewis, Washington, and this is the same unit listed in item 12 (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command) of his DD Form 214. 

10.  The Service Number contained in the applicant’s enlistment contract and in the records created and maintained during his active duty tenure in the Army is the same and contains an eighth digit of 6.  This correct service number was used consistently in all records and documents prepared and published throughout his tenure in the Army.  However, the eighth digit of the Service Number listed on his DD Form 214 was incorrectly entered as 8.

11.  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 for unfitness when there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted and carefully considered the applicant’s claim that his age, lack of maturity, and limited amount of education contributed to his misconduct and his request that his discharge be upgraded.  However, the Board finds these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief in light of the applicant’s extensive disciplinary history and undistinguished overall record of service.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  The Board is satisfied that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and it concludes that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, the Board finds an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted at this time.

3.  The Board finds merit in the applicant’s claim that the service number entered in his separation document is incorrect.  The evidence of record confirms that the eighth digit of the applicant’s service number is 6 vice 8 as is currently listed in Item 2 (Service Number) of his DD Form 214.  Therefore, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to correct this administrative error at this time.  

4.  However, the Board finds no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that the unit entered in Item 12 (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command) of his separation document is in error.  The applicant’s service records confirm that the last unit he served in prior to his separation from the Army was Company A, 3rd Battalion, 8th Infantry, Fort Lewis, Washington.  This is the unit entered in the applicant’s DD Form 214; therefore, the Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support this specific request for relief. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending Item 2 (Service Number) of the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned to change the eighth digit of the service number entered to 
6 vice 8 as is currently recorded; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects this change.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__LLS__  __BJE___  __WDP__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Luther L. Santiful__
		    CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077865	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640210	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	Partial Relief	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.