MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079621

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Ms. Linda M. Barker		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and immature when he was discharged, but he has learned much over the years.  He states that he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded in less than a year.  In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and three letters of character reference from companies with which he transacts business.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1958 for a period of 3 years.  Following all required military training and airborne training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 120.00 Pioneer.  

On 31 October 1958, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of knowingly breaking a lawful order not to leave the base.  He was sentenced to 30 days' hard labor and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 1 month.  The sentence was approved on 31 October 1958.

On 22 November 1958, the unexecuted portion of the applicant's sentence to hard labor was suspended until 30 November 1958.

On 16 November 1959, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month and reduction to the grade of Recruit/E-1.  The sentence was approved on the same day.  

On 10 December 1959, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of assaulting a private first class/E-3 by striking at him with his fists and feet.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of $70.00 per month for 3 months.  The sentenced was adjudged on 14 December 1959.

On 19 December 1959, the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination and was found to be free from mental disease, defect, derangement, and to possess the mental capacity to know right from wrong.

On 16 January 1960, the unexecuted portion of the applicant's sentence to confinement was suspended and the unexecuted portion of the approved sentence to forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for 3 months was remitted.

On 3 August 1960, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to report to reveille formation.  His punishment consisted 10 days' restriction.

On 15 October 1960, the applicant accepted NJP for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  His punishment consisted of 2 hours' extra duty for 14 days.

On 5 November 1960, the applicant accepted NJP for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of 2 hours' extra duty for 7 days.

On 21 January 1961, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for striking a specialist/E-4 on the face.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 60 days and forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for 2 months.  The sentence was approved on 27 January 1961.

On 20 February 1961, the applicant’s unit commander requested that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a UD.  The commander’s specific reason for recommending the applicant for separation was his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The unit commander stated that he believed that the Army had done all that it could to make the applicant a soldier and recommended that the applicant appear before a board of officers.

On 10 March 1961, the applicant appeared before a board of officers.  On the same date, the board of officers found him unfit for further military service due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  The Board recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a UD.

On 29 March 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with a UD.  Accordingly, on 6 April 1961, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years, 10 months, and 7 days of active military service and accruing 84 days of lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation were normally issued a UD.

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 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.

2.  The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.  Furthermore, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a request for a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

4.  The Board noted that the applicant’s chain of command tried to assist him in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial and judicial punishment; however, the applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  The applicant by continuing his pattern of misconduct and poor duty performance left his command no choice but to initiate separation action.

5.  The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct.  The Board determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.  

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

__rjw___  __bje___  __lmb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079621	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030408	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19610406	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.