MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091011

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGann, 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.

APPLICANT STATES: He was young and had only an 8^th grade education when he enlisted in the Army. He states that he did not have any problems until returning from an assignment in the Canal Zone (Panama). He notes that he did not understand the seriousness of the discharge he would receive by accepting "a 208" and believes that he should have received better counsel and advice. He states that everyone makes mistakes and maintains that if he had had someone to talk to he would never have made the mistakes that he did. The applicant states that he has no "paper work or witness only an ache for an honorable discharge."

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 17 March 1959. At the time of his enlistment he was approximately 3 months shy of his 18^th birthday. His service record indicates that he obtained his high school GED (general education diploma) in 1959. He had a GT (general technical) score of 99.

The applicant successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and in August 1959 was assigned to Fort Gulick in the Canal Zone as a military policeman. He received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings while in Panama, was promoted to pay grade E-4, and in May 1961 was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

In July 1961 the applicant returned to the United States and was assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

In April 1962 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively reduce the applicant from pay grade E-4 to E-3 for inefficiency. As the basis for the recommendation, the commander cited three records of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which the applicant received between November 1961 and April 1962, a 10 March 1962 arrest by civilian authorities for resisting arrest and being drunk in public, and a 28 March 1962 incident in which the applicant disobeyed an order to report for duty. The commander stated that he had talked to the applicant's supervisor who indicated that prior to November 1961 the applicant's appearance was always neat and that his work was satisfactory. However, after November the applicant's "off-duty activities seemed to interfere with his duties and he seemed to lose all interest in his work." The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed reduction action and offered no statement in his own behalf. At the time the reduction action was initiated, the applicant was 2 months shy of his 21^st birthday.

On 28 April 1962, prior to finalization of the reduction action, the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave). He returned to military control on
13 May and on 5 June 1962 the reduction action to pay grade E-3 was executed. The applicant was subsequently convicted by a summary court-martial for his period of AWOL and further reduced to pay grade E-1.

Between July 1962 and October 1964 the applicant accumulated nearly 300 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. During that period he was convicted by two special courts-martial, and punished three more times under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During that same period, the applicant was also promoted to and reduced from pay grade E-3 two more times.

On 16 October 1964 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. He was issued an undesirable discharge certificate. Documents associated with the applicant's discharge were not in records available to the Board.

At the time of the applicant's separation in October 1964 he was 23 years old and his separation document confirms his award of a high school GED in 1959.

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. Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances, a general or honorable discharge was authorized, as directed by the convening authority.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant's separation was accomplished in accordance with laws and regulations in effect at the time. The applicant's contention that he may not have received appropriate counsel and advice is not supported by any evidence available to the Board or provided by the applicant.

2. The Board notes that the evidence, which is available, supports a conclusion that the applicant was given considerable opportunity and guidance by his chain of command in an effort to assist the applicant in becoming a good soldier. His records indicate that guidance came in the form of several records of non-judicial punishment, three court-martial actions, and a reduction for inefficiency. The amount of time expended by the applicant's chain of command on rehabilitative measures over a 3 year period was extensive. His argument that if he had had someone to talk to that he may not have made the same mistakes is without foundation.

3. The applicant's contention that his youth may have contributed to his poor decisions is also without foundation. The Board notes that the applicant's most admirable service occurred when he was under 20 years of age.

4. The applicant's desire to correct the errors of his youth by obtaining an honorable discharge are admirable, however, it does not serve as a basis for the Board to grant 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 that 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

__JLP___ __AAO__ __PHM __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091011
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030923
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.