MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  14 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001063569

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his friend was separated from the Army and his sergeant approached him and asked if he wanted to be discharged and he replied with a, yes.  He was informed that he would receive an undesirable discharge; however, his discharge would be upgraded to honorable in 6 months. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation or Discharge).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the United States Air Force (USAF) on 14 May 1963, and was honorably discharged from the USAF on 12 June 1963.  He enlisted in the Army National Guard on 19 February 1964, and was honorably discharged from ARNG on 17 March 1964, in order to enlist.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 1964.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 18 November 1964, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-206, misconduct - fraudulent entry.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

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

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Section II of the regulation prescribed procedures for processing fraudulent entry cases for misconduct by reason of fraudulent entry into the service.  It also stated that fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, induction, or period of service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment, which if known, might have resulted in rejection.  Any incident, which meets the foregoing, may be cause for discharge for fraudulent entry.

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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions or to show that his discharge should be upgraded.  The Board also notes that despite his contention that his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months; it is unaware of any programs for “automatic upgrade” of discharges issued by the Army.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 

4.  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 this requirement.

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

__jl___  __wm____  ___ra_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063569	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020314	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19641118	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.