MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035856

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He submits no evidence or statement to support his request.

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

He enlisted on 28 December 1958 and, after training, was assigned to Korea.

On 22 December 1960, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of stealing a pair of combat boots, the property of another soldier, and breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months (suspended for 2 months), forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 2 months, and reduction in rank to recruit (E-1).

On 27 May 1961, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of three specifications of failure to obey a lawful regulation by purchasing and selling restricted items to a Korean national, wrongful appropriation of a government vehicle, and breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months), forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 6 months, and reduction in rank to recruit (E-1).

The applicant was separated on 19 December 1962 with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. He had 2 years, 11 months and 22 days of creditable service.

The applicant was discharged from the Army Reserve on 31 January 1966 upon completion of his Reserve obligation and was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Essentially, it stated an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A general discharge may be issued if an individual has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment period or obligated service or any extension thereof.

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.

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 Board notes that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of his separation and therefore presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  Considering the applicant’s record of courts-martial, his characterization of service is proper.

2.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  The applicant has not demonstrated that quality of service which would justify changing the characterization of his discharge.

3.  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 this requirement.

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

__sk____  __jea____  __reb____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035856	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000808	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19621219	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.