MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 
	  

	BOARD DATE:           15 April 1998                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-05833

	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:




	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 he had completed good service in basic training and training as a supply clerk; that his sister, with whom he was very close died in December of 1964; that after her death nothing mattered to him and he began going AWOL; that he is now older and wiser and wants to correct a mistake that has haunted him for over 33 years;  and that he can never be 17 again and the only way to correct his situation is to plead his case to the Board.  The applicant enclosed the following with his application:  a statement of employment; a statement from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office indicating he has had no criminal record; a letter from him to the Board in his own behalf; and two character references from friends.

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

The applicant entered the Regular Army on 16 September 1964 for a period of 
3 years at the age of 17.  

The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition, and indicates the applicant never advanced beyond the rank of private/E-2.  However, there is a recorded history of repeated AWOL related disciplinary infractions.

On 9 January 1965 while still in training the applicant went AWOL from his unit and remained away until 10 January 1965; he again went AWOL on 17 January and stayed away until 19 January 1965; his third incident of AWOL was from 28 February through 10 March 1965.  

On 26 January 1965, while pending action for his first two incidents of AWOL, the applicant underwent a psychiatric exam that contained no reference to the death of his sister or that he was having problems based on that situation.  The examiner provided the following diagnostic impression:  “Passive aggressive personality of the aggressive type, manifested by going AWOL twice, aggressive actions, hostile towards rules, regulations and discipline, immaturity, childlike behaviors, such as pouting and refusal to cooperate; manipulations and telling of untruths to get out of the military.”  The examiner indicated the applicant was determined to get out of the Army, and that during the interview he attempted to try several methods which he had heard about to get out of the Army, one being that he liked boys.  This was found to be untrue, the applicant lead a very active heterosexual life.  The examiner finished by stating the applicant knew right from wrong and was responsible for his actions.



On 26 March 1965 the applicant was tried by special court-martial and was found guilty of violation of Article 86 for the AWOL periods indicated above.  His resultant punishment included confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of $52.00.a month for 3 months.

On 26 May 1965 the applicant’s unit commander, at the special processing detachment, initiated action to eliminate the applicant from the service, under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness, and recommended he be given a UD.  The commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s repeated incidents of AWOL , and his unwillingness to response to counseling and rehabilitation.  

The unit commander in a certificate enclosed with his recommendation indicated that while the applicant was awaiting court-martial for his AWOL offenses he was a constant subject of administrative disciplinary infractions which included: frequently missing formations; missing bed checks; and constantly being found in his bunk when he should have been performing duties.  Counseling and rehabilitation were attempted but failed.  The applicant consistently indicated his desire to be discharged regardless of the type of discharge he received.

Based on the applicant’s youth and inexperience the commander still intended to return the applicant to duty in the hope that he could be made a useful soldier and that he had profited from his experience in confinement.  However, before the assignment could be accomplished the applicant again went AWOL covering the period 19-20 April 1965.

The applicant acknowledged he had been advised by his commander of the basis for the contemplated elimination action and completed his election of rights.  The choices he made in his election of rights were:  to waive his right to have his case heard by a board of officers; to waive his right to personal appearance before a board of officers; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  His election of rights also includes his attesting to his understanding that he fully understood that if he received a UD he could  be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs, and that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law.

On 10 June 1965 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed issuance of a UD.  Accordingly, on 28 June 1965 the applicant was discharged after completing 7 months, and 4 days of active military service and accruing 
69 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

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



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, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board found no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant which supported his contention that his reaction to the death of his sister impaired his ability to serve and was the cause for his repeated incidents of AWOL.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given every opportunity to return to duty for rehabilitation and still did everything he could to be discharged.  

2.  The Board acknowledges the applicant’s post service good conduct and employment record; however, determined these factors alone do not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  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.

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.  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