MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            25 November 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11592

	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:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, 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 to a general discharge and that he be separated for the convenience of the government.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes clemency is warranted in his case because it is unjust for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of his bad discharge.  He goes on to state that his first period of service was honorable and that it was not until after his reenlistment that he got married at a young age and shortly thereafter returned to Germany only to have his wife tell him 6 months later that she was seeing someone else.  He further states that he became depressed, resorted to alcohol, and tried to patch things up with his wife. He continues by stating that he began a series of AWOLs and was eventually convicted by civil authorities for stealing a car.  He served his time in a Federal Reformatory, was discharged from the Army and was divorced the same year.  He also states that he did the crime and paid his debt to society and that he got what he deserved.  Furthermore, the depression he suffered over his first wife led to his being in and out of mental hospitals, being on antidepressants, alcohol binges, unemployment, and living on the streets.  However, he has not been in any more trouble with the law and has made a life with his new wife and three children.  He opines that had the same thing happened today, he would have been able to get help for his problems and he would not be in the position he is in now.  He concludes that he recognized his mistakes, took responsibility for them, and he believes that he has paid for them long enough.    

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

The applicant enlisted with parental consent on 12 June 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 27 October 1964 for duty as a cook.

He was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-3 on 13 June 1965 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 14 June 1965 for a period of 6 years, a reenlistment bonus, and a military occupational specialty (MOS) producing school.  He remained in Germany until 14 June 1966 when he was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia to attend training as an office machine repairman.  

On 23 September 1966 he went AWOL and remained absent until he surrendered on 8 November 1966 and was placed in pre-trial confinement.  He escaped from confinement on 29 November 1966 and remained absent until he surrendered on 16 May 1967.  He was again placed in pre-trial confinement and he again escaped on 18 July 1967 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 27 September 1967 and charged with transporting a stolen vehicle across State lines.  He plead guilty and was convicted by civil authorities on 5 October 1967 and sentenced to 30 months of hard labor in civil incarceration.

On 23 March 1968 the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for conviction by a civil court of law adjudged in excess of 1 year.

The applicant acknowledged on 15 April 1968 that he did not intend to appeal his conviction.  He also waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 13 November 1968 and directed that he be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 November 1968 under the provisions of Army regulation 635-206 for conviction by a civil court.  He had served 2 years, 2 months, and 27 days of total active service and had 793 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1979.  He contended at that time that he was married with six children and that he had no further trouble with the law since his discharge.  The ADRB determined that based on his overall record of service relief in his case was not appropriate.  The ADRB denied his request on 6 March 1981.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be processed for separation.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.      

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time with no indication of any violations of any of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s claim of good post-service conduct.  However, given the seriousness of his offenses and his otherwise undistinguished record, equitable relief in his case in not warranted.

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

__jev ___  ___rvo___  __js ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11592	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1998/11/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/11/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	A61.00	
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A61.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.