PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027478

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Ms. 		Member	
	Mr. 		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that it is unfair for him to suffer the stigma of an under other than honorable conditions discharge simply because he entered service under the age of 18.  He further states that he served for over 14 months prior to being separated.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 18 November 1960 in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years unassigned.  The record also indicates the applicant completed the 7th grade and that his parents gave consent for his enlistment on 10 September 1960 at the age of 17.  The record also indicates the applicant achieved an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 51, (i.e., Mental Category of III).

5.  He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for basic combat training (BCT).  He completed advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 140.00 (Cannoneer) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He arrived at his first permanent duty station in Germany on 7 June 1961.

6.  On 28 August 1961 he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) for stealing a Bulova watch.  He was reduced to private/E-1, and sentenced to forfeiture of $60 per month for 4 months and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.  The record shows that he was in confinement from 27 August 1961 to 4 December 1961.

7.  On 9 October 1961 the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Section II, AR 635-206 by reason of fraudulent entry.  The recommendation for separation was based on a report received from the DuPage Illinois County Court indicating that the applicant was adjudged a delinquent on 1 July 1959 and committed to the Illinois Youth commission until attaining the age of 21.

8.  The record also contains a 19 January 1960 notice of parole on the applicant. The report showed that he had a 7th grade education, lived at home with his parents and 4 siblings, and that his father was an executive with a wallpaper company.  This notice indicated that the applicant stole a vehicle in an attempt to runaway with his girlfriend.  The applicant indicated that he would like to serve in the Army upon his release and he was recommended for parole and placement at home with his parents.   

9.  Subsequent to his parole, his parents gave parental consent for his enlistment on 10 September 1960.  His parents indicated that they were his sole legal guardians. 
10.  On 17 July 1961 an Order for Discharge of Guardianship was issued by the DuPage County Court terminating the Illinois Youth Commission’s guardianship of the applicant based on his apparent satisfactory transition into the Army.  

11.  On 4 January 1962 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Section II, AR 635-206 by reason of fraudulent entry and issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).

12.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel who had committed an act or acts of misconduct.  Section II of that regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of individuals who had fraudulently enlisted in the Army.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.    

13.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  From a purely technical point of view, discharge was warranted for fraudulent entry and the applicant’s discharge was effected in accordance with applicable, law and regulation.

2.  The Board noted that at the time of enlistment the applicant had a 7th grade education and that his parents assisted with his enlistment by giving parental consent 11 months after parole from the Illinois Youth Commission.  Further evidence indicates that the Illinois Youth Commission discharged its guardianship responsibilities over the applicant prior to his separation from the Army.

3.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s failure to advise the Army of his previous record of delinquency.  However, the Board found that the applicant enlisted with the assistance of his parents 11 months after being paroled from the youth commission.  In addition, the applicant’s juvenile record was available to military authorities at the time of separation and was apparently not sealed by the court, and it is reasonable to presume that his juvenile record would have been available to recruiters, upon request, at the time of enlistment. 

4.  Further, the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct while in the service, however, the applicant served 100 days of confinement without incident for his misconduct prior to his separation from the Army.  The Board also concluded that the applicant’s limited educational background partially mitigated the misconduct of record.
5.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and taking cognizance of the time that has elapsed since his discharge from service, the Board determined that the applicant’s characterization of service is inequitable.  It appears that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. 

6.  Accordingly, in the interest of justice and as a matter of clemency, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 4 January 1962.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 4 January 1962, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.
 
3.  That the applicant be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned correction.

4.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR199028288	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620104	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206 .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	6000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9301		
2. 9217		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.