MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068695

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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:  That he was absent without leave for 15 minutes and was given 30 days of confinement, but only served 6 days.  In support of his application he submits three third party character references in the form of handwritten letters and a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214). 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records.  However, the DD Form 214 provided by the applicant shows:

He enlisted in Beckley, West Virginia, on 30 January 1956, for a period of 3 years.  It appears that he completed his training as a field artilleryman and was transferred overseas, where he remained until he was returned to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for separation.

His records show that he was released from active duty under honorable conditions on 4 February 1959, on the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 3 years of total active service and had 6 days of lost time.  His records also show that he was separated in the pay grade of E-2 with a date of rank of 14 December 1958, less than 2 months before his separation. 

There is no indication in the available records that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s     15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided that persons separating from the service on their ETS would have their character of service determined by their overall record of service.  An honorable or general 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the applicant’s discharge was properly characterized based on his overall record of service at the time, in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.

2.  Given the applicant’s admission that he was given 30 days of confinement, coupled with a date of rank less than 2 months before he separated from the service, the Board must presume that he had a disciplinary record at the time that attributed to his service being deemed less than fully honorable.

3.  Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume what the Army did at the time was correct.

4.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions and supporting letters; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to overcome the unknown factors in his case.

5.  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.

6.  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

___inw __  __wtm___  __cg____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068695	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1959/02/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  455	144.0300/ETS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.