Author: WoodsHN

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                               AC97-07482
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:        17 December 1998                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-07482

	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. Loren G. Harrell | | Director
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Karen L. Wolff | | Chairperson
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | | Member
| Mr. Kenneth L. Wright | | 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 honorable or general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was “barely 17” when he entered the Army and immediately “became involved with the wrong crowd.”  He notes that he had trouble with reading and writing and was, in effect, given “erroneous advice” concerning how to carry out his duties.  He states when he did what he was told, believing it to be correct, people laughed at him and he became angry.  The applicant states his commander told him that his discharge would be upgraded after his separation.  In support of his request he submits several letters from friends and family members attesting to his honorable character and service to the community.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were apparently lost or destroyed during the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.  Information contained herein was reconstructed from alternative sources, including documents provided by the applicant.

The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 20 April 1955 at the age of 17 with 7 years of formal education.  He successfully completed training as a vehicle mechanic and served nearly 11 months overseas.

At some point during his nearly 2 years of active Federal service he accumulated 122 days of lost time and was apparently recommended for administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  His separation order, published at Fort Lewis, Washington, indicates the applicant’s administrative separation was the result of “board action.”

On 26 June 1957 the applicant was released from active duty under other than honorable conditions (undesirable discharge).  At the time of his separation he had completed 1 year, 10 months and 5 days of active Federal service with 122 days of lost time.

The five letters submitted in support of the applicant’s request are all dated in 1997 and indicate the applicant has been a good citizen.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included repeated petty offenses/frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with laws and regulations applicable at the time.  The Board notes that the evidence indicates he may even have had the opportunity to present his case before an administrative separation board.

2.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s age, and his good post-service conduct, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

4.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

5.  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

__klw___  __mhm___  ___klw__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID | AC
SUFFIX |
RECON | YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .  .  .  .  .
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |