MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 November 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11090

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he never received a separation document (DD Form 214) changing his character of service from under other than honorable conditions to under honorable conditions due to the Presidential 
Proclamation 4313, which pardoned soldiers that were discharged in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In 1977, he received a copy of DD Form 1953A (Clemency Discharge issued Pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No 4313) which was issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) on 
16 January 1976.  However, he lost his copy within 2 weeks.

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

He was inducted on 23 July 1969.  He successfully completed his
training as a medical specialist and received excellent conduct and efficiency
ratings.

On 12 February 1970, nonjudical punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended), and 14 days
extra duty.  

On 4 March 1970, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and 7 days restriction and extra duty.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 16 April 1971 of two specifications of assault.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1. 

A bar to reenlistment was initiated on the applicant for several counts of disobedience, disrespect, missing movement and AWOL.  

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not
present in the available records.  However, his records do show that he was
discharged under other than honorable conditions on 20 July 1971 under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 11 months, and 28 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 
6 October 1979.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and 
denied his request on 1 April 1981. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although an honorable or general discharge is
authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers, who voluntarily
entered into and completed an alternate public work program specifically 
designated for former soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for
AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Under this
proclamation, eligible deserter were given the opportunity to request discharge
for the good of the service with the understanding that they would receive an
undesirable discharge.  Upon successful completion of the specified alternative
service, the deserter issued a clemency discharge.  A clemency discharge does
not restore veterans benefit; rather, it restores federal and, in most instances
state civil right which may have been denied due to the less than honorable discharge.  If a participant of the program failed to complete the period of 
alternative service the original characterization of service, undesirable, would retained.

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, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance
with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the board.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected by the ARPERCEN to show that he was separated from the service under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation 4313.

4.  The Board notes that participation and successful completion of the Clemency Program did not provide for an upgrade of an individual’s discharge.  
It simply restore rights that were otherwise lost had individuals not participated.

5.  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

__gp ___  ___rwg __  ___cla___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director