MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  10 November 1999                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022433

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  Reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young at the time of the incident surrounding his discharge and therefore believes that he was not adequately represented.  In support of his request he submits four character references, and a copy of the sentence ordered by the state of Georgia.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 19 April 1989 (COPY ATTACHED).

The attached ABCMR Memorandum of Consideration shows that on 28 May 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at age 17.  On 9 February 1966, he was convicted by a civilian court of accessory to robbery and sentenced to six years probation.  The applicant authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he did not plan to appeal the conviction.

Further, available evidence indicates that on 12 April 1966, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers that would convene on 25 April 
1966 to determine whether or not he should be retained in the service or eliminated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for conviction by a civil court for a felony. 

On 12 April 1966, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, acknowledged notification and requested that a specific commissioned officer be designated to act as his legal counsel.  He waived representation by special counsel.

On 25 April 1966, the applicant appeared before the board with the counsel that he requested.  The very same day the board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.

On 7 June 1966 the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD. 

On 23 September 1966, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of a conviction by a civil court during the current term of active military service.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 29 days of active military service.  He also had 28 days lost time due to being in confinement.

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 overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision due to the fact that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, there is no evidence that the he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant received legal counsel in accordance with established guidelines in effect at the time of his discharge.  He has submitted no evidence to the contrary.

3.  Additionally, the Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted his many accomplishments outlined in the character references that he submitted.  However, in review of his entire service record, these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

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

INW____  CLG_____  MVT_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022433	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206. . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A00.34	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0034	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.