MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033294

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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:  Reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his general discharge which this Board denied on 4 November 1964.  That Memorandum of Consideration is not available and this case is reviewed de novo.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not guilty of the offense that he was found guilty of at the court-martial.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 1 May 1959.  He completed language training and was assigned to Germany as a voice intercept operator.  He was promoted to grade E-4 effective 25 October 1961.

On 11 January 1962 he was convicted by summary court-martial of failure to obey the lawful order of a senior NCO and that he knowingly made a false official statement with intent to deceive.  The approved sentence included reduction to grade E-3.  On 29 January 1962 he was reduced to grade E-2 after accepting punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for misconduct.

He was again convicted by summary court-martial, on 6 April 1962, of failure to report to his place of duty.  The approved sentence included 30 days hard labor and to forfeit $70.

On 20 April 1962 special orders number 110 directed the applicant’s separation under honorable conditions and transfer to the USAR.  Effective 24 April 1962 the applicant was separated under honorable conditions in grade E-1 under authority of AR 635-205, paragraph 7.  He had 2 years, 11 months, and 24 days creditable service and no lost time.

AR 635-205, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of soldiers for the convenience of the Government.  Paragraph 7 provided for early separation of overseas returnees with less than 60 days remaining service.

AR 635-200 provides the criteria for issuance of general discharge certificates.  It provided for separation with a general discharge for an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  The pattern of behavior is the governing factor in determining the character of service.

There is no evidence of record that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to request an upgrade of his discharge within the 15 year time limitation.

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.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The court-martial convictions and sentences imposed were approved by the proper convening authority.  There is no evidence of record that he exercised his right to request review by the Judge Advocate General.

3.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized considering his numerous acts of indiscipline over a short period of time. 

4.  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

__RO___  __CP___  __JA___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033294	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000511	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GENERAL	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620424	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-205	
DISCHARGE REASON	A07.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.