MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080764

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that 35 years ago, his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve in the Army.  He states that now he is 55 years old and has an incurable cancer.  He claims that he is a good American citizen and that he has raised his children to love their country.  He also states that he would now like his discharge upgraded to honorable before he dies as a matter of American honor and pride.  He claims that he would like to be able to be proud of saying he served his country, and he wants his children to know that their father was a good soldier.  He concludes by stating that he deeply and sincerely regrets his stupidity during the 1960s, and he has seen the error of his ways.  He claims that since the tragedies of 9/11, he has never been prouder to be an American.  Finally, he states that this upgrade would mean a great deal to him and his family.  

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

On 29 December 1965, the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 
4 years  He was trained in and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E (Armor Crewman).  His record shows that during his active duty tenure, the highest rank he attained was private/E-2 (PV2).  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions and two separate convictions by special court-martial (SPCM). 

On 11 April 1966, he accepted NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) on 
11 April 1966 and on 6 May 1966, he accepted his second NJP for sleeping on guard duty.  On 19 August 1966, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from on or about 26 July until on or about 3 August 1966 and from on or about 5 August until on or about 14 August 1966; and on 21 September 1967, he again convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from on or about 2 May until on or about 27 June 1967.  

On 21 November 1967, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander stated that the action was based on the applicant’s disciplinary history and on his lack of self-motivation for continued service. 

On 30 November 1967, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects.  Subsequent to this counseling, he completed his election of rights by waiving consideration of his case by a board of officers, waiving his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers, waiving his right to consulting counsel, and finally he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 2 December 1967, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, and on 8 December 1967, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 
3 months, and 20 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued  234 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his youth impaired his ability to serve and it carefully considered the personal issues he raised.  However, while the Board understands the reasons he desires an upgrade to his discharge, it finds none of the factors raised support granting the requested relief.  

2.  The applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that his rights were fully protected throughout the discharge process.  It also finds that the discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and that it was appropriate based on his extensive record of misconduct.  

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 this requirement.

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

__WTM__  __LDS _  __ FCJ__  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080764	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19671208	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.