MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:            10 August 2000    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041553

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was not consistent with his crime and that while he admits to some errors in judgement he now only wants to be forgiven for his actions and have his record cleared.  He states he has been a pastor for the past 24 years and has helped "many young men" avoid the same mistakes he made.  He submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty on 23 July 1964 and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training prior to being assigned to Germany as an infantryman in December 1964.

Between 1965 and 1967 he was convicted by two special courts-martial for assault, punished on two separate occasions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and accumulated more than 95 days of lost time due to confinement.

On 15 February 1967 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The commander noted that the applicant had been involved in "repeated commission of major offenses involving acts of a violent nature and frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities."  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his attendant rights.

The recommendation was approved and on 10 May 1967 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  While the applicant maintains that his post service conduct has been such as to warrant upgrading his discharge he presents no evidence which would justify that request.

3.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

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__  ___js___  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041553	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000810	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.