PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032273

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and that his rank be restored.

3.  The applicant has provided a Department of the Army (DA) Form 
1861 (Transcript of Military Record) in support of his application.

4.  The applicant’s military records were not available to this Board for review.  A 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center destroyed approximately 
18 million service members’ records.  It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.

5.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army and his reduction in rank are not on file.  However, the evidence of record does include a DA Form 1861.  This form documents that the applicant served on active duty, in the Regular Army, from 
23 June 1948 until 22 April 1952, at which time he was discharged, in the rank of private/E-2, with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions.

6.  The DA Form 1861 also shows that he was separated for the convenience of the government, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-365.  The information contained on this form also indicates that the applicant had completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 1 day of active military service, of which 2 years, 5 months, and 14 days were served overseas.  This document also verifies that the applicant had accrued 29 days of time lost during his tenure in service.

7.  The military records transcript also documents that the applicant earned the following awards and decorations during his service:  the Army of Occupation Medal/with Japan clasp; the Korean Service Medal; the National Defense Service Medal; the United Nations Service Medal; the Combat Infantryman Badge; the Distinguished Unit Emblem; the Rifle Sharpshooter Badge; and a Unit Citation Emblem.  

8.  On 28 October 1988, a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) was issued to the applicant, by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM).  This form added the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) and the Presidential Unit Emblem to the list of awards earned by the applicant; however, it also deleted the Distinguished Unit Emblem from the list of awards earned by the applicant.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit.  Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service was to be determined solely by the individual's record of military service during the enlistment under review.  It stated, in pertinent part, that a characterization at separation will be based upon the quality of the soldier's service and that this quality of service will be determined according to standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. 

10.  Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28, dated 11 August 1982, subject: Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments.  

11.  Section 4 of DOD Directive 1332.28 sets forth the objectives for discharge review.  It provides that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that a change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.  Furthermore, a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless there is substantial doubt the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time the discharge was considered, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 provides guidance on separation for Convenience of the Government.  It states, in pertinent part, that unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier being separated for the convenience of the Government will be awarded a character of service of honorable.  It does allow under certain circumstances that an under honorable conditions characterization of service may be awarded.  However, it stipulates that no one will be awarded a character of service of under honorable conditions under this chapter unless they are notified of the specific factors that warrant such a characterization.

13.  The regulatory guidance on proper notification procedures is contained in chapter 2 of Army Regulation 635-200.  This criteria requires that a soldier be advised, in writing, that separation has been recommended and of the specific allegations on which the proposed action is based.  In addition, it is required that the member be advised of the rights available to them in connection with the discharge action.  These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to consult with legal counsel.
14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22  (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Chapter 
4 provides the policy and procedure pertaining to the award of the AGCM.  Paragraph 4-6 (Character of Service) states, in pertinent part, that in order to qualify for the AGCM a member must, throughout a qualifying period, be evaluated by the immediate commander as having a character above reproach.  In addition, their record of service must indicate that they willingly complied with the demands of the military environment; they had been loyal and obedient to their superiors; they faithfully supported the goals of their organization and the Army; and they conducted themselves in such an exemplary manner as to distinguish them from their fellow soldiers. 

15.  There is no indication in the available records that the Army Discharge Review Board reconsidered an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge subsequent to the current standard guidance provided in DOD Directive 1332.28.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s record of service does not meet the criteria for an under honorable conditions discharge by current Army regulations.  The Board found support for this conclusion in the 1988 ARPERSCOM decision to award the applicant the AGCM.  The character of service criteria required to earn the AGCM does in fact indicate that that the applicant met the quality of service standards necessary to be awarded an honorable characterization of service in conjunction with his discharge for the convenience of the government.

2.  Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under DOD Directive 1332.28, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded based on the application of the current regulation for discharges for the convenience of the government. 

3.  Although DOD Directive 1332.28 provides policy for review of discharges for Discharge Review Boards, it appears appropriate that this Board adopt and apply the standards set forth in this Directive for this particular case.

4.  Accordingly, in view of the current standards for discharges issued because of convenience of the government, a discharge under honorable conditions was unduly harsh and unjust.  It would now be appropriate to correct the inequity by changing the applicant’s character of service to fully honorable and by issuing him an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

5.  After a full and careful evaluation of the available evidence and records, the Board determined there is no basis on which to grant the applicant’s request for a restoration in rank.  The available records do not contain the facts pertaining to the applicant’s record of promotions and reductions and the applicant has failed to provide any supporting evidence or documentation to support this request. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected 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 fully honorable characterization of service on 22 April 1952.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Regular Army, dated 22 April 1952, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___la ___  ___ao ___  ___ra___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Luther L. Santiful____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032272	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1952/04/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365	
DISCHARGE REASON	Convenience of the Government	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2. 16	102.0200	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.