MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030897

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was not fair and was improperly administered; he questions if his discharge was proper under existing law; and he contends that his discharge was unjust as others involved were treated differently.  In support of his request, he submits a VA administrative decision dated 16 May 1997, a transcript of his personal hearing with the VA, a copy of his statement in support of a VA claim, and copies of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and DA Form 24 (Service Record).

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel offered no evidence or argument beyond that submitted with the application.

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

He enlisted on 25 May 1961 and, after training, was assigned to Germany.  Upon completion of his tour in Germany, he was reassigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana.

While serving in Germany, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) twice under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 12 April 1963 for failure to obey a lawful order, and on 3 June 1963 for AWOL.

On 10 February 1964, while stationed at Fort Polk, he was administered NJP for being disorderly in public and disobeying a lawful order.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that he was discharged on 13 July 1964 for civil conviction under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant had 2 years, 11 months and 6 days of creditable service and 73 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more was to be considered for elimination.  The requirement for a board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.  When such separation was warranted an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate.

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

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 facts and circumstances, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of his discharge.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.  It would appear that his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

3.  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

__sk____  __kak____  ___clg__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030897	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000426	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640713	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	A61.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.