MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            24 January 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061825

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar 		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a young man, from New York City, who had just turned 17 years of age and has no excuse as to why he did what he did in the service, and is asking for forgiveness.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation or Discharge).

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

At the age of 17 years, he enlisted on 13 February 1961, as a heavy weapons infantryman.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 30 September 1961, of failure to obey a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and 30 days confinement.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a 3AA Form (Supplemental Personnel Data), dated 11 February 1963, which shows that the applicant was AWOL from
2 to 4 November 1961 (2 days), 20 to 22 November 1962 (3 days), and on 23 November 1962, was confined in the hands of civil authorities.

On 1 February 1963, the applicant was convicted by civil authorities for breaking and entering automobiles and was sentenced to 3 years in civil confinement.

On 11 February 1963, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction.  

On 12 February 1963, the approval authority directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 21 February 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction.  He had a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 4 days of 
creditable service and had 97 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Section III of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  

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 the applicant’s contention that he was a young man, who had just turned 17 years of age, and had no excuse as to why he did what he did in the service.  The Board also notes that the applicant was 17 years and 7 months at the time he committed his first offense, and was 18 years and 9 months of age at the time he committed his second offense.  However, his age is not sufficiently mitigating in this case to warrant relief due to his civil court conviction.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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 this 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

_gdp___  _wtm____  __rtd___      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061825	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020124	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19630221	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  	189	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.