Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                                    AC97-11499
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             17 June 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC97-11499

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. | Curtis W. Barbee Jr. | | Chairperson
| Ms. | Karen L. Wolff | | Member
| Mr. | Edward Williamson | | Member

	Also present, without vote, were:

| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | | Director
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | | Analyst

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 a general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the service could have tried at least once to turn him around by returning him to duty; the Army was quick to rid itself of him; and that he has been punished for life for a mistake he made as a juvenile. 

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

On 7 April 1964 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 3 years at the age of 17.  

On 17 April 1964 the applicant went AWOL while in basic training at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He was dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 16 May 1964, and returned to military control on 1 June 1964 after remaining away for 45 days.

On 7 July 1964 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 for being AWOL for the period outlined in the proceeding paragraph.  The applicant plead and was found guilty.  The resultant sentence included confinement at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $28.00 per month for 
3 months.  On 27 July 1964, while serving his confinement sentence in the post stockade at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, the applicant escaped confinement until he was returned to the post stockade on 28 July 1964.  

On 24 August 1964 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate elimination action on him, under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness.  The commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s two periods of AWOL and his conviction by special court-martial.  The applicant completed his election of rights by waiving his right to have his case heard by a board of officers; to a personal appearance before a board; to be represented by counsel; and he elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. 

On 31 August 1964 the appropriate authority approved the elimination action and directed the applicant be discharged with a UD.  Accordingly, on 15 September 1964 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 month and 14 days of active military service, and accruing 115 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

On 29 April 1965 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.  

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 would normally be 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. The Board noted that the applicant’s contention that his youth and immaturity should mitigate his misconduct.  However, 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.

2.  The Board also acknowledged the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and his post service good conduct but determined this alone did not warrant relief.  The Board examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review.  There was full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The Board concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant’s record were not mitigated by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director