MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 August 20000                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042203

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  No contentions submitted. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from reconstructed personnel records.

On 25 November 1959, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years, with 6 years, 4 months and 11 days of prior active service.  His military occupational specialty was 177.00 (Air Defense Missile Crewman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 21 December 1961, the applicant was tried and convicted by civil court of fondling a female child.  The applicant was sentenced to 90 days in civil confinement.  The applicant did not appeal the conviction.

On 29 December 1961, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to a conviction by a civil court and that he be required to appear before a board of officers convened to determine whether he should be discharged.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  

On 3 January 1962, the Commanding General approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 
5 February 1962, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for reason of conviction or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court, with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed a total of 8 years, 4 months and 16 days of creditable active service.

Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an individual will be considered for discharge when an individual is initially convicted by civil authorities of an offense which involves moral turpitude, regardless of the sentence received or maximum punishment permissible under any code.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.

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.  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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__mdm___  __js____  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042203	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000810	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-206 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.