MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057420

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin 		Member	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis 		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 while stationed in Germany he was falsely accused of committing armed robbery against a German civilian.  He contends that the victim of the robbery picked him out of a lineup; however, he had nothing to do with the robbery.  He states that he was restricted to the barracks for approximately five weeks and placed on lousy details until he was deported back to the states.  He also states that he doesn’t know if his name was cleared of that incident but he does know that he was discharged under honorable conditions and not with an honorable discharge.  He further contends that employment opportunities have been affected by “something that happened” while he was in the military in Germany.  In support of his application, he submits an undated letter of explanation.       

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

The applicant was inducted in the Army of the United States on 14 August 1959 and was honorably discharged on 23 October 1959 to enlist in the Regular Army. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 October 1959 for a period of 3 years.  The applicant was transferred to Germany for duty as an ammunition storage helper on 24 January 1960.

The applicant’s Service Record shows that he had one day lost due to being absent without leave on 3 January 1962.

Unit Orders Number 46, dated 9 August 1962, show nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for misconduct effective 9 August 1962.  His punishment consisted of a reduction from private first class (E-3) to private (E-2). No other details were available in the applicant’s personnel service records. 

Records show the applicant returned to the United States in October 1962.  On 
9 October 1962 the applicant was released from active duty with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 for early release of overseas returnees and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  On 
31 July 1965 the applicant was discharged from the USAR with a general discharge. 

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was accused of or convicted of armed robbery.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-205, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for convenience of the government.  Paragraph 7 governs separation of enlisted personnel with less than 3 months remaining to serve.  Paragraph 7(a) pertains to overseas returnees.  It states, in pertinent part, that commanders are authorized to order separation for the convenience of the government of enlisted personnel for return to the US.  Enlisted members of the Regular Army and USAR, who upon arrival have less than 3 months remaining before expiration of term of service (ETS) will be discharged for the convenience of the government, released from active duty, and returned to their former National Guard or Army Reserve status, or released from active duty and transferred to the USAR.  This regulation states that a discharge certificate based upon the character of service rendered will be issued to the individual concerned.

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 considered the applicant’s contentions that while he was stationed in Germany he was falsely accused of committing armed robbery against a German civilian, that he was restricted to the barracks and was placed on lousy details until he was deported back to the states.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support these contentions.

2.  Evidence of record shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for misconduct on 9 August 1962.  

3.  Evidence of record also shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 for early separation of overseas returnees and not as the result of misconduct.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s under honorable conditions (general discharge) was based upon his character of service as determined by the appropriate discharge authority in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time.   

5.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to honorable for employment opportunities.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 

6.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
7.  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.

8.  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

RJW____  KWL____  PM______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057420	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010920	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19621009	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-205  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early release of overseas returnees	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.