PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070470

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant states that the only reason that he was not furnished an honorable discharge was because his company commander had a personal grudge against him.  He states that he was court-martialed for driving an Army vehicle without a trip ticket.  He states that the vehicle in question was an ambulance, which he normally drove and he used it to get some sandwiches for a bunch of his friends who were celebrating his scheduled rotation back to the United States.  He goes on to state that he knows that he was wrong for taking the vehicle; however, it was often done and the usual punishment was a verbal reprimand or at the very worst, nonjudicial punishment.  He states that he was court-martialed and he believes that he was singled out by a bigoted person in a position of authority.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that after he completed 2 years of service in the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG), on 25 March 1959, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He was immediately promoted to the pay grade of E-2 and he went on to successfully complete his training as a clerk.

5.  On 11 February 1961, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-3.

6.  On 10 April 1962, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent from his unit billets from 2400 hours until 0230 hours and for wrongfully appropriating a United States Army Opel Ambulance.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

7.  He was released from active duty on 7 May 1962, at the expiration of his term of service without further incident.  He was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his reserve obligation.  He successfully completed his reserve obligation and he was discharged on 28 February 1965.  He had completed 3 years, 1 months and 13 days of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his records within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 covers types of characterization or description of discharges.  Paragraph 3-7 applies to administrative discharges and character of service and provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.  It will not be issued to soldiers upon separation at expiration of their period of enlistment, military service obligation, or period for which called or ordered to active duty.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, it appears that his general discharge was based on one isolated incident.

2.  He completed 2 years of inactive service in the NYARNG prior to enlisting in the Army for 3 years.  While he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent from his unit billets from 2400 hours until 0230 hours and for wrongfully appropriating a United States Army Opel Ambulance, the records fail to show any prior acts of misconduct and he remained in the Army until the expiration of his term of enlistment.  

3.  The Board has noted that the applicant’s court-martial conviction occurred on 10 April 1962 (less than 30 days prior to his release from active duty).  He was released from active duty on 7 May 1962 and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group where he completed his reserve obligation on 28 February 1965, without incident.  Consequently, the applicant was entitled to an honorable discharge based on his overall record of service and because the general discharge was furnished to him at the expiration of his term of enlistment.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 7 May 1962.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 7 May 1962, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

___gw___  __hof ___  ___jlp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Jennifer L. Prater_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070470	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1966/05/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	455	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  456	144.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.