MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            8 April 2003 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080209

	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:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has been a good citizen for over 40 years and that his discharge under other than honorable conditions is the only blemish on his military record.  In support of his request, the applicant submitted a newspaper article showing that he was honored for doing a great job in transporting senior citizens.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 1958 for a period of 3 years.  Following the completion of all required military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.10, Light Weapons Infantryman, and was assigned to Germany as his first permanent duty station.

During the applicant's period of service, he accumulated five periods of absence without leave (AWOL); was dropped from the rolls of his unit as a deserter; served two periods of confinement; received six court-martial convictions; accepted two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice; and was barred from reenlistment.  

On 22 March 1962, a mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for discharge.

On 4 April 1962, the company commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a UD for unfitness.  On 13 April 1962, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  On 20 April 1962, the board met and, after the applicant stated that he would continue to go AWOL until such time as he was discharged, recommended that he be discharged with a UD due to unfitness.  On 2 May 1962, the board's recommendation was approved.

The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a UD.  Accordingly, on 9 May 1962, the applicant was discharged from the Army with a UD after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 20 days of creditable military service and accruing 253 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 6 February 1976, Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 12 June 1981, the ADRB again denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service, a record reflecting repeated periods of AWOL and numerous disciplinary actions taken against him.

2.  The Board noted that the applicant was given many opportunities to conform to military standards through rehabilitation training and nonjudicial and judicial punishment; however, he failed to respond appropriately.  The board also noted that the applicant stated at his board of officers hearing that he did not care to remain in the military and he would continue to depart his unit AWOL until he was discharged.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant requested that his discharge be upgraded based upon his post-service record and the fact that he had almost 3 years of creditable military service.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his successful transition to civilian life; however, in reviewing the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

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

__rjw___  __bje___  __lmb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080209	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030408	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620509	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.