MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 23 January 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002078227

         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
Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson
Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGarthy, 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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he had a prior honorable discharge. Clemency is warranted because it is unjust for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge. Under current standards, he would not have received the type of discharge that he did. His low aptitude scores and level of education impaired his ability to serve. He was 22 years old at the time and he associated with the wrong people. He has been a good citizen since his discharge. As supporting evidence, he provides his two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the Untied States Report of Transfer or Discharge); his Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 30 May 1963; his notice of an Undesirable Discharge; his Undesirable Discharge Certificate, dated 11 June 1964; and seven character witness statements.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 May 1961. He had attended 1 year of high school. Of 15 aptitude test scores, 4 were under 90. His GT (general technical) test score was 97. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 112.00 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman). He was honorably discharged on 30 May 1963 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 31 May 1963 after completing 2 years and 1 day of creditable active service.

On 22 November 1963, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 September to on or about 19 October 1963. He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to forfeit $46.00 pay for 3 months, and to be confined at hard labor for 3 months.

On 2 January 1964, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 9 to on or about 12 December 1963. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $46.00 pay for 6 months.

On 7 April 1964, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 26 to on or about 30 March 1964. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $46.00 pay for 6 months.

On 23 April 1964, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation. The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant attributed his offenses to family and marital

---

difficulties. No psychosis, neurosis, organic brain syndrome, or mental deficiency
was found. He was found to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to have sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

In May 1964, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.

On 4 May 1964, the applicant was notified of the contemplated separation action. He waived his right to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 20 May 1964, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 11 June 1964, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. He had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 7 days of creditable active service and had 186 days of lost time. This DD Form 214 erroneously shows he entered active duty this period on 31 May 1962 (he entered active duty this period on 31 May 1963).

On 11 July 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.

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 for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation which governs the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to be awarded. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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. 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.

2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3. Under current standards, the applicant most likely would have been discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial and have received a discharge under other than honorable conditions (the current equivalent of an undesirable discharge).

4. Notwithstanding the applicant's lack of education, his aptitude test scores were not exceptionally low. In addition, he was an experienced soldier with over 2 years of service when his misconduct began.

5. While the applicant's post-service conduct is admirable, considering the nature of the misconduct which led to his discharge it does not warrant the upgrading of his discharge to either fully honorable or to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

6. The Board notes that there is a typographical error on the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 June 1964. He entered active duty that period on 31 May 1963, not 1962. This DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect this information.

7. 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.

---

NOTE: The Army Review Boards Agency, Support Division, will be requested to administratively correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 June 1964 to show he entered active duty for that period on 31 May 1963.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KAN__ __GJW _ __PHM __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078227
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/01/23
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.