MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002083047

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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 (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he committed a grave error of judgment in deciding to accept a UD because no one spoke to him prior to his board hearing to explain the consequences of his early separation from the service and the effects that it would have on his future.  He states that he completed basic training and then he was transferred to Germany, where he met 10 other soldiers who were going to the same company.  He goes on to state that after about 10 months at the company, the supply sergeant told him that promotions were “coming down” and that he should get ready to pin on his private first class stripes.  He states that he was proud and happy about the news; however, when the orders were published, his name did not appear.  He states that he was crushed and that when he inquired as to why he was not promoted, he was told that he had missed the cut off for promotion by one day.  He goes on to state that the other ten soldiers were promoted and that he died inside, as his heart was no longer into soldiering and he began to drink more and more.  He states that he had just turned 18 years old and was so depressed over what had happened that he just could not handle it.

He continues by stating that he received two special court-martials for fighting and for intoxication within 1 year and that he was eventually reduced to the pay grade of E-1.  He states that all he could do was to get out of a bad situation and that no one tried to assist him in getting the rehabilitation he needed.  He states that he dreamed of having a 30-year career in the Army and now when he hears stories about service men that were unable to cope with stress, disappointment, alcohol, drugs and any other problems being helped by the Army to straighten out their careers, he wonders where the help was when he needed it.  He concludes by stating, in effect, that if only he could go 32 years back in time, things would be different and anything that the Board can do for him now will be appreciated.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

On 6 December 1955, he enlisted in the Army in Newark, New Jersey, for a period of 3 years at age 17.  He successfully completed his training as a military policeman.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 4 January 1958, under the provisions of Army

Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 11 days of total active service and he had 108 days of lost time.  He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

There is no evidence available that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of this discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

On 11 June 1981, the applicant submitted an application to this Board requesting an upgrade of his discharge.  On 10 October 1981, his case was administratively closed by the staff of the Board due to the lack of available information.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness for those individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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 Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to show that he was not informed of the consequences of a less than honorable discharge and the effects that it may have in the future.  However, the available evidence does show that he had 108 days of lost time.  In his own statement, he admits to being court-martialed twice as a result of his acts of misconduct and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to presume that what the Army did in his case was correct.

3.  Although the applicant was 17 years old when he enlisted in the Army, his contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.

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

__fe ____  ___hof __  ___mt___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083047	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19580104	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	583	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  583	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.