MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            9 December 1998      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11401

	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	
	Mr.	Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr.	Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 general discharge as upgraded by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served his country well even while suffering injuries and his discharge was unjust because it was based on a single isolated incident.  He goes on to state that he was court-martialed for spilling some silverware on the floor and was later determined to suffer from a mental illness.  He goes on to contend that he was mentally sound and that he should have received an honorable discharge. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, in which 18 million service records were destroyed.  However, the available records show:

The applicant enlisted on 7 March 1952 and he continued to serve until he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 May 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-368.  He had served 2 years, 2 months, and 1 days of total active service.

On 30 January 1970, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in the process of adjudicating his request for an upgrade of his discharge, determined that the applicant suffered from a mental illness that existed  prior to his entry into the service that impaired his ability to serve.  The ADRB, after considering the circumstances of his case, granted the applicant an upgrade of his discharge to under honorable conditions (General).  

The applicant applied to this Board on 23 January 1979 requesting that his general discharge be changed to show that he was honorably retired by reason of physical disability.  The Board determined that there was no evidence to suggest that he should have been separated by reason of physical disability and denied his request on 7 April 1980.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.

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 tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Notwithstanding the ADRB’s decision to upgrade his discharge, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  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

___jh ___  ___fe ___  ___tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director