MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 24 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003086408

         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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he received an honorable discharge in April of 1963. He reenlisted under the name of J---- S----- A----. He was discharged in January 1965 with an undesirable discharge. The stigma of an undesirable discharge has been with him for the past thirty-eight years. In shame of his undesirable discharge he changed his name to R---- S----R------ in 1979. The evidence that was submitted in support of his undesirable discharge was half-truths. The racial climate was different then and he questioned his commanding officer's ethics and motives. His commanding officer took advantage of his ignorance; he signed documents without question in an effort to rid himself of his (commanding officer's) abuse and control. His Captain deceived him; he was led to believe that the documents he signed were merely a formality pertaining to an early separation. This discharge is an injustice to him and all of the good things that the Army represents. The applicant provided a copy of his Social Security Card and a copy of his Arizona driver's license showing his new name and date of birth with his application.

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

On 20 September 1962, the applicant enlisted in the U. S. Naval Reserve for
8 years. On 16 October 1962, the applicant was called to active duty for training. On 15 April 1963, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. On
23 April 1963, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.
The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

Between 14 November 1963 through 1 September 1964, while assigned to a unit in Germany, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on seven occasions for being drunk and disorderly, failure to repair, absent without leave, causing a vehicle accident, being off post without a pass, absent from his appointed place of duty, and missing bed check twice. His imposed punishments included forfeitures, confinement at hard labor, restrictions, extra duty, and pay grade reduction.

On 8 December 1964, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The commander's recommendation was based on the applicant's prolonged series of offenses, his apathetic attitude, and his general inability to adjust to the Army.

On 10 December 1964, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial
(SPCM) of wrongfully giving a U.S. Armed Forces ID card to a German National taxi driver. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $50.00 pay month for 1 month, and 30 days confinement at hard labor, and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
A mental status evaluation and a separation medical examination found the applicant qualified for separation. He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf but declined to do so.

On 23 December 1964, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On
18 January 1965, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. He completed 1 year, 7 months, and
28 days of creditable active duty service this enlistment period with 28 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 for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it as 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; and established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.




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 noted the applicant's allegation of the racial climate being different; however, there is no evidence of record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his allegation of racial discrimination.

2. The Board reviewed the available records pertaining to the applicant's service, which included seven NJPs and one SPCM.

3. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge. The Board also determined the applicant's service was not satisfactory; therefore, he did not meet the criteria for a general discharge.

4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

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

_AAO___ __YM____ __JPI___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086408
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/24
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1965/01/18
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Carl S. Chun
ISSUES 1.	144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.