MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   .

	BOARD DATE:  13 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000035436

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 military records be corrected to show that he was given an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That there were no grounds for the general discharge which he received, no disciplinary actions, etc.  The commendation letter of 
14 May 1949 would not have been given to him if he was to receive a general discharge.  He provides a copy of his general discharge certificate.  He also provides a copy of a 14 May 1949 pre-printed form letter of appreciation addressed to him in the grade of Recruit on the occasion of his discharge from the Army.  The letter is from the Headquarters, Philippines Command, and bears the signature and signature block of the commander, a United States Army Major General.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records cannot be found and are presumed destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Archive in St. Louis.  His WD AGO Form 53-58, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, General Discharge, provided by the applicant, shows that he enlisted in the United States Army on 28 August 1946 in Manila, the Philippines.  The applicant, a Philippine citizen, enlisted as a Philippine Scout.  He rose to the rank of Private First Class (PFC) pay grade E-3 in the infantry.  On 3 November 1948, he was reduced to the rank of Recruit (E-1).  His military occupational specialty upon discharge shows that he was a Duty Soldier.  He was discharged on 
16 May 1949 for the Convenience of the Government Prior to the End of the Term of Service (PETS) under authority of Army Regulation 615-365.  He was given a general discharge.  His rank upon discharge was Recruit.

Army Regulation 615-365, in effect at the time, dated 19 July 1949, was entitled, “Enlisted Personnel, Discharge for the Convenience of the Government.”  Paragraph 5 of this regulation allows discharge for the Convenience of the Government to be either honorable or general.

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.  It appears from the evidence on the applicant’s discharge form that he was reduced from PFC to the lowest enlisted grade, Recruit E-1, possibly as the result of a disciplinary action on or about 3 November 1948.  He was discharged 6 months later as a Duty Soldier.  This would be consistent with confinement for 6 months and discharge for disciplinary reasons.  This evidence and interpretation suggests that the general discharge is correct.  From this evidence, it appears that the applicant’s service was not fully honorable warranting an honorable discharge.

2.  The letter of appreciation is addressed to the applicant in the grade of Recruit after nearly 2 years and 9 months of service.  This is further evidence that the applicant’s service may not have been fully honorable warranting an honorable discharge.  While the sentiments of appreciation expressed in the letter are genuine, the letter appears to be of the kind that would be issued to all members of the command being discharged and may not be specific to the circumstances of the applicant.  Considering all the other evidence of record above suggesting a less than fully honorable service and considering the nature of the letter of appreciation, the letter is insufficient evidence to justify a fully honorable discharge.

3.  In the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, an assumption of regularity must be made that the general discharge in this case is correct.

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

___jp___  __mm______  __ja____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035436	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000713	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19490516	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110	Discharge Documents	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.