2.  In effect, the applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Army on 22 October 1948 and was separated with an honorable discharge on 
29 November 1951 at Pine Camp, New York.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) shows receipt of the Good Conduct Medal.  He had 3 years, 1 months, and 8 days of service.

4.  The applicant reenlisted on 30 November 1951.  On 
17 January 1955 a board of officers met to determine the applicant’s suitability for retention or discharge from the Army.  The applicant was present during the board proceedings and was represented by counsel.  Testimony before the board revealed that the applicant had numerous periods of AWOL, had missed formations and bed check, and had a drinking problem.  The applicant had four convictions by courts-martial for AWOL.  Testimony also revealed that the applicant was a good worker.  

5.  The Board determined that the applicant was unfit for further military service, recommended that he be discharged from the Army because of unfitness, and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 28 January 1955 the separation authority approved the findings of the board.
The applicant was discharged on 18 August 1955 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 because of unfitness.
He had 2 years, 2 months, and 17 days of service and 549 days of lost time. 

6.  Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the
policy and procedures for separation of enlisted
personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included, in
addition to misconduct and repeated petty offenses,
habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial
or amoral trends, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug
addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual

perversion, habitual shirking, and repeated venereal
infections.  Action to separate an individual was to be
taken when, in the judgment of the commander,
rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was
unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When
separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at that time.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge. However, in view of the honorable nature of his prior enlistment, his honorable discharge on 
29 November 1951 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.  To do otherwise would work an injustice upon him by depriving him, or his heirs, of consideration for certain VA benefits for his honorable period of service.

3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider his honorable discharge on 29 November 1951 as a complete and unconditional separation from the military service.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned received a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 29 November 1951.


2.  That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied.
             
BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON