RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            13 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099539


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel Crumpler               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Mark Manning                  |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be
upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and immature, had a
young wife and children, and was having both financial and marital
troubles.  He states that because he was a french horn player he was never
able to be assigned overseas, which was his hope when he reenlisted.

3.  The applicant states that he only wanted to get out of the south and
found, instead that he was continually assigned to bases in the south.
Once he was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky he states that he stayed in
trouble from there on out.  He states that ultimately he "took off for the
North, and ended in New York City."  He states "to this day" he cannot
remember much about the day; it is a blur.  He states he doesn't even
remember how he got there.

4.  He states that after arriving in New York he worked three jobs and paid
off all of his bills but one before the FBI (Federal Bureau of
Investigation) picked him up.  He states that he was told by a board of
review that he would get "six months and [then be sent] back to duty."
However, he states that he was sent to Leavenworth where, because he had
such a short sentence, he felt out of place. He states he developed
bitterness for the military and wanted no part of it.

5.  The applicant states that he doesn't blame anyone but himself for his
problems but states that he learned a lot and has been able to put it to
good use. He states that he worked as a patrolman and detective and
underwent specialized training at the National FBI Academy.  He started his
own business and worked as a computer specialist and was attending San Juan
College to finish his computer degree.  He has had no trouble since leaving
the military, and would serve again if he were permitted to.  He is hoping
that the Board "will see a way for [him] to redeem [himself]" as he has
tried to be a good citizen and respect people who have not been as
fortunate as himself.

6.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request beyond his
self-authored statements.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant initially
enlisted and entered active duty for a period of 3 years on 13 July 1953.
He was 17 years old at the time and residing in California.  His enlistment
contract indicated that he was single at the time of his enlistment and
that he was enlisting for the "Regular Army Unasgd [unassigned]."

2.  He successfully completed training, including leadership training, at
Fort Ord, California prior to being assigned to Fort Hood, Texas as a
french horn player in February 1954.  He received excellent conduct and
efficiency ratings while attending training.

3.  On 8 March 1956 the applicant reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  The
reenlistment contract was executed at Fort Hood and included a notation
that no promises had been made beyond an initial assignment to Fort Bragg,
North Carolina.

4.  On 24 April 1956 the applicant was assigned duties as french horn
player with the 82nd Airborne Division Band at Fort Bragg.  He attended a
band service school in Washington, D.C. between December 1956 and June 1957
and returned to Fort Bragg following completion of training.

5.  In October 1957, while still assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant was
convicted by a summary court-martial of operating a motorcycle on post
without post motor vehicle registration tags.  His punishment included
forfeiture of $50.00 for 1 month.

6.  The applicant's records contain a 9 March 1959 mental hygiene
consultation document indicating that the applicant showed no evidence of
psychosis or psychoneurosis, but had a "lifelong history of unstable
behavior and poorly controlled hostility."  He was diagnosed with
"emotional instability reaction" and it was recommended that he be
administratively separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.
 Included on the document were comments made by the applicant's commander
who noted that the applicant had established a reputation for lying, "has a
bad record of indebtedness and his personal life is quite out of line.  His
family is not living with him and he conducts himself like a young single
man, rather than a married man with three children."  It noted that the
applicant's "best friend was recently jailed for robbing a bank and killing
the bank teller…[and] since this happened, has been rather belligerent and
sometimes it almost seems that he is proud of this tragedy."  There are no
documents in available records indicating that the applicant's command ever
took actions to follow-up on the recommendation to administratively
discharge the applicant.

7.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority
for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to
be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the
service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and;
reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a
satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was
impracticable, such as in cases of confirmed drug addiction or when the
medical and/or personal history indicated that the individual was not
amenable to rehabilitation measures; or disposition under other regulations
was inappropriate.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a
discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established
pattern of shirking.

8.  By May 1959 the applicant had been assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky,
after a brief assignment at Fort McPherson, Georgia.  In spite of the March
1959 mental hygiene document, with the exception of one "fair" efficiency
rating at Fort Bragg in September 1958, the applicant continued to
consistently receive excellent conduct and efficiency ratings, and had
attained pay grade E-4.

9.  In September 1959, while assigned to Fort Campbell, the applicant was
convicted by a special court-martial for preparing and presenting a false
and fraudulent dependent travel voucher.  His punishment included reduction
to pay grade E-1, and 3 months of hard labor without confinement.

10.  It is unclear, from records available to the Board, when the applicant
married.  However, a Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record), which appears to have been prepared, or reviewed in December 1959,
indicated that the applicant was married with a total of 4 dependents.

11.  On 8 April 1960 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave) and
in May 1960 he was dropped from the rolls of the Army.  He was apprehended
by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 17 August 1960.
 On
3 November 1960 he was ultimately convicted, pursuant to his plea, by a
general court-martial of AWOL and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge,
total forfeiture, reduction, and confinement at hard labor for 8 months.
His confinement was to be served at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

12.  Clemency/parole/restoration to duty documents, contained in the
applicant's file, indicate that the applicant reported that he was in debt
and under tension as a result of working an extra job and getting little
sleep at the time he went AWOL. He reported, however, that the "immediate
incident that caused him to go AWOL involved his commanding officer's
picking up from the pawn shop a band instrument which the [applicant] had
previously pawned."  The documents indicate that the applicant reported
that he had been living beyond his means, that his wife and he had
separated and that he was working under an alias when civilian authorities
apprehended him in New York.  It also noted that he hoped to return to
military duty if his bills could be paid off.

13.  Ultimately the applicant was denied clemency and restoration to duty.
The documents note that he was ineligible for parole because of his short
sentence.

14.  On 11 February 1961 the applicant's bad conduct discharge was
executed.  At the time of his discharge he had nearly 7 years of creditable
service and more than 300 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
15.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 also notes that a general discharge, when authorized,
may be issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

2.  It is noted that the applicant had two prior courts-martial convictions
before his conviction of AWOL, and it appeared that his command had
contemplated an administrative discharge at one point.  Clearly the
applicant understood, or should have understood, the ramifications of his
actions and should be held accountable for the violation of trust the Army
had bestowed upon him by not processing him for elimination earlier.  The
actions of the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be
resolved in favor of the applicant.

3.  His argument that he was young and just wanted out of the south is not
supported by any evidence in available records.  By the time the applicant
departed AWOL he was 24 years old and had, according to his reenlistment
contract, reenlisted for an assignment to Fort Bragg, not overseas as he
now argues.  In spite of his previous disciplinary problems the applicant
continued, for the most part, to receive excellent conduct and efficiency
ratings which supports a conclusion that in spite of his youth he was
capable of honorable service and knew the difference between right and
wrong.

4.  While the applicant’s contention that since his discharge he has been a
good citizen has been noted, the issue, either in part or in whole, is
insufficient to justify upgrading the applicant’s discharge.

5.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his
discharge was in error or unjust.  He has submitted no evidence which would
serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SC __  ___SK___  ___MM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            ___ Samuel Crumpler______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099539                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040713                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |