MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 5 February 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001063417

         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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson
Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member
Mr. Roger Able		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 he received a bad discharge after completing nearly 5 years of service and that he believes it was very unfair. He claims that he completed his first enlistment honorably. During his second enlistment he was assigned to Germany where he was impressed by the lack of racial segregation by the local population. While there were separate white and black clubs, this was the creation of soldiers and not the locals. There were no black women available so if one wanted female companionship it had to be with one of the locals, which was not a problem for him. However, he claims that many took exception to this, especially his first sergeant, with whom he enjoyed a good relationship until the first sergeant saw him leaving the movie theater with his girlfriend. At that time, the first sergeant, who was from North Carolina, became very upset and their relationship changed at that point and things went downhill from there. On a couple occasions he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and was restricted to the post. This combined with the harassment he received resulted in his leaving post on two occasions while on restriction, which resulted in his being reduced in rank and being confined in the stockade for
30 days. All this occurred in the last 3 months of his enlistment. While the punishment for these offenses may seem fair on face value, he believes more could have been done in his behalf given he had a spotless record for almost
5 years. He claims that the pursuit of his bad discharge when he was only
2 months from finishing his enlistment was unfair and how could the chain of command use the reason “could not adapt to military life” as a reason for his discharge when he had an excellent record and advanced in rank so quickly prior to the last few months of his second enlistment. He also contends that he is a good natured person and he strives to be good at whatever he does. He claims that since his discharge, he has been a good tax paying and loyal citizen without problems with the law or anyone else. He has raised 3 children to be the same way and he has progressed to the position of supervisor of custodians for the Evanston School District, Evanston, Illinois. He concludes that it is his contention that the animosity between he and his chain of command resulted in the abuse of power by that chain of command in giving him a bad discharge just a month shy of his completing his enlistment. In support of his application, he provides a copy of a certificate of appreciation, dated June 1999, issued to him by the Evanston Township High School, Evanston Illinois, expresses appreciation for his 26 years of service.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.


The evidence available includes a separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on 23 June 1955. This document confirms that he was inducted into the Army on 1 September 1953, and that he continuously served on active duty for 1 year, 9 months, and 23 days, until being honorably separated on
23 June 1955. It also shows that on the date of his separation, he held the rank of private first class and that the only award he received during this period of service was the National Defense Service Medal. There are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition reflected in this separation document.

A second DD Form 214 on file confirms that the applicant entered the Regular Army on 8 December 1955 and that he continuously served on active duty for
2 years 10 months, and 22 days, until receiving an UD on 24 December 1958. This document shows that on the date of his separation from this period of service he held the rank of private/E-1 and that he earned no awards or decorations during this enlistment. It also reflects no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition; and it confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits or traits.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and provided for the discharge of members for undesirable habits and traits. 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 contentions of the applicant that his record of service was good and that his discharge was the result of animosity on the part of the chain of command based on racial prejudice. However, while Board takes allegations of racial bias very seriously and would never let stand any action that was the result of racial discrimination, it finds insufficient evidence to support his claim in this case.

2. The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events surrounding his separation processing and discharge from the Army. The Board notes that there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.

---

3. The applicant’s separation document also confirms that he was discharged for under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for undesirable habits and traits. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is compelled to conclude that his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations and that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4. Finally, the Board considered the applicant’s overall record of service and his excellent post service conduct. However, given the lack of military records to substantiate valorous or meritorious service, the Board finds these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

5. 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.

6. 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

___JH___ __KAK__ __RA____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063417
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/05
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1958/12/24
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208
DISCHARGE REASON	Undesirable Habits or Traits
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189	110.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.