MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                           12 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:                  AR2000043803

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	M . John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Carol J. Suiter		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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was arrested by civil authorities in Alabama in 1974 and was issued a general discharge with full benefits.  He also states the he joined the Army to fulfill his obligations to his country and to follow in his father’s footsteps who was a WWII Veteran and served in five major campaigns.  He was awarded five bronze stars (sic bronze service stars).  He was proud of his service and the uniform he wore.  He was informed that his discharge would be upgraded to honorable in 6 months, which has not happened.  He further states that his record is in error because he went to court, was told to plead guilty and that he would be adjudicated as a youthful offender, which “is not a felony, nor a misdemeanor”.  He goes on to state that at the time of his discharge, the board did not take this into consideration, so in the eyes of the civil court, he was offered the protection of being a juvenile.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 
3 January 1972 as a motor transport operator.

On 16 August 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 19 June 1973 to 23 July 1973 (34 days).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and a reduction to pay grade 
E-3.

On 23 July 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, created at the time of an ADRB review in 1981, shows that discharge proceedings were initially started Army Regulation 635-206 due to a civilian conviction for rape.  The report indicates that he was 
convicted under the Youthful Offender Act and a discharge under Army Regulation 635-206 was not considered appropriate.  If discharged under that separation authority, he could have received an undesirable discharge.  

Instead, his case was referred to the Department of the Army.  His DD Form 
214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that on 13 June 1975, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for the convenience of the government.  He was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 2 years and 6 months of creditable service and had 346 days of lost time due to AWOL and civilian confinement.

The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 August 1980.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 23 October 1981.

Army Regulation 635-200 serves as the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of that regulation provides for the authorization for separation for the convenience of the government.  Except as delegated by this 
regulation or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the government will be at the Secretary’s discretion with issuance of an Honorable or General Discharge Certificate as determined by him.  

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 is unaware of any programs for "automatic upgrade" of discharges issued by the Army.  Applications must be made to the ADRB or this Board for such actions.

2.  The Board notes the applicant's contentions concerning his conviction by a civilian court as a juvenile offender.  The evidence of record at the time of his ADRB review indicates that this matter appears to have been taken into consideration and his current discharge under the plenary authority of the Secretary of the Army for the convenience of the government, would appear to reflect this fact.  

3.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The Board notes the applicant's NJP actions and his extensive periods of AWOL and other absences from military control.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant's characterization of service is consistent with Army standards for soldier's whose service is less than fully honorable.

5.  The applicant's desire to emulate his father's record of service is commendable.  However, reentry into the Army is based on many factors to include age, waivers of prior records of service and the needs of the Army.  Local recruiters are in the best position to make this determination.

6.  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.

7.  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:

JDM_____  JED____  CJS____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043803	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001012	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750613	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  chapter 5-3	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.