MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 22 October 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002068792

         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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member
Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was a good soldier through basic combat and advanced individual training; that when he arrived in Germany, he was homesick and could not handle being there; and that he committed all types of misconduct so he could be sent home. He also states that the characterization of his service was too harsh for the offenses committed.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: In effect, that the applicant's ability to serve was impaired by his deprived background, which consisted of an unstable home life, truancy, and convictions for car theft and drunk and disorderly conduct. He also contends that the applicant's diagnosed character and behavior disorder, as well as his heavy drinking, diminished his ability to serve.

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

On 14 April 1959, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. He was initially assigned to the 6^th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox, Kentucky, for basic and advanced training. Following completion of all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.00, Light Weapons Infantryman.

On 6 November 1959, the applicant departed Fort Knox enroute to his first permanent duty assignment with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in the Federal Republic of Germany.

On 15 March 1960, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 to 28 February 1960 and stealing a wallet and monies valued at $25.00. He was sentenced to 6 months' confinement at hard labor (suspended for 6 months), forfeiture of $40.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to recruit/E-1. The sentence was approved on 15 March 1960.

On 6 October 1960, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was diagnosed with "Passive Aggressive Reaction with excessive periodic drinking." The psychiatrist found that the applicant possessed sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and to understand the nature of any proceedings against him. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of his unfitness.

---

On 15 October 1960, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for stealing a duffel bag containing two pairs of dress shoes, one pair of jump boots, four fatigue uniforms, one poplin shirt, and one shaving kit, valued at $42.00, the property of a master sergeant. He was sentenced to 6 months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to recruit/E-1. The sentence was approved on 17 October 1960. The applicant was confined to the post stockade.

On 31 October 1960, the applicant was recommended for separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD. The company commander stated that the applicant's misconduct and traits of character were below the required standard of the American soldier. The intermediate commander recommended approval of the discharge with a UD.

On an unknown date, the applicant acknowledged that he had been counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommending his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. He also declined counsel, consideration of his case by a board of officers, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 8 December 1960, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge with the issuance of a UD. Accordingly on 23 December 1960, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days and accruing 57 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The Regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members found to be unfit for further military service, and without rehabilitative potential, would be separated. 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 does not accept the applicant's argument that his discharge was too harsh for the offenses committed. The applicant committed multiple discrediting offenses which constituted an extreme departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army. These incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.

2. The Board noted counsel's contentions that the applicant's ability to serve was diminished by his deprived background and a character and behavior disorder. Nevertheless, the Board did not find the applicant any less capable of succeeding in the Army than any other soldier from a similar background or with the same type of personality flaw. It is noted the Army psychiatrist found that the applicant possessed the mental capacity to understand his actions and to participate in the separation procedures. Furthermore, the Board noted that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct which led to his separation from the Army.

3. The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated his misconduct or poor duty performance. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4. Determining eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of this Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

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

__fne___ __slp___ __eja___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068792
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20021022
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19601223
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.9405
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.