MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          29 March 2000                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999032772

	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.

	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller  		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was ill advised during his court-martial by his defense counsel.

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

The applicant’s military record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
25 July 1960, for 3 years.  His military occupational specialty 131.00 (Armor Crewmen). 

Between February and May 1962, the applicant was convicted by three summary courts-martial for the wrongful appropriation of a radio, for stealing a tire and wheel and for disobeying a lawful order.  His sentence included forfeitures, extra duty, confinement at hard labor for 1 month and a reduction to pay grade E-1. 

On 26 July 1962, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of sleeping while on guard duty.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of $50 pay per month for 3 months.  

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 14 August 1962, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities).  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  

On 24 August 1962, the Commanding General approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 5 September 1962, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed
1 year, 11 months and 5 days of creditable active service and 68 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC 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 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.

2..  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant alleges that his defense counsel ill advised him during his court-martial.  The applicant’s military record does not support his allegation, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence in support of his allegation.     

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__rgh___  __mdm___  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032772	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750605	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.