MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            15 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021911

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was only 17 years old when he entered the Army on the buddy plan with his best friend.  He goes on to say that it was the first time he had been away from home and now realizes that his inability to adjust to the military was the result of being influenced by his friend and his lack of maturity.  He now realizes what he did was wrong but he cannot go back and change what happened, however he claims to have learned from his mistakes.  He discussed his situation with a benefits counselor who indicated that under current Army standards he would be given a GD for the same offenses he committed, which renders his discharge unjust.  In addition, he comments that many individuals who went to Canada or deserted during the Vietnam conflict had their discharges upgraded, so he concludes his requesting an upgrade is justified.  He concludes by stating that he has been married for 33 years and has a daughter and two grandsons; in addition, he states he has been extremely stable and law abiding since his discharge.  In support of his application, he has included the enclosed statements from a friend and from an employer.

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

There applicant’s official military record was not available during this review.  However, the evidence included a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which documents that the applicant entered the Regular Army on 4 May 1959, at the age of 
17 years and 11 months, just one month shy of his eighteenth birthday.  

The DD Form 214 shows no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does include a record of AWOL related misconduct.  His AWOL periods were from 4 January to 7 February 
1960 and from 12 September to 20 November 1960, which totaled 74 days of time lost. 

The specific circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation are not on file. However, by his own admission, in a statement provided to this Board, the applicant confirmed the AWOL periods shown on the DD Form 214.  In addition, he verified that he had been offered the opportunity to remain in service or to be discharged after his second AWOL, and that he elected to be discharged.  The properly constituted DD Form 214, issued to and authenticated by the applicant, documents the following facts:  Character of Service-Under Other than Honorable Conditions; Type of Discharge Certificate Issued-Undesirable; Authority and Reason for Separation-AR 635-208/SPN 28B (Unfitness, Frequent Involvement in Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Military or Civilian Authorities).  

The DD Form 214 also shows that on 5 December 1960, the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge after completing 1 year, 4 months, and 
18 days of active military service, and having had accrued 74 days of time lost. 

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.  Under current Army standards soldiers who have been AWOL over 30 days are normally offered the opportunity for discharge, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under these provisions is normally under other than honorable conditions (UOHC).

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 facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  However, the evidence of record does include a properly constituted 
DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process. 

2.  The applicant's contentions, that he was young and immature at the time, and that he was influenced by his friend, are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  In addition, while the Board congratulates the applicant on his post service conduct, this factor alone does not provide a basis for upgrading his discharge.  

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  Regulations currently in effect still dictate an UOHC characterization of service for soldiers separated based on the same offenses for which the applicant was discharged.  Therefore, there is no basis for a change in the applicant’s discharge under current standards.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

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

___mdm_  __tnk ___  __eb____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021911	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1960/12/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.