MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  23 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001065231

	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:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 changed to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young at the time and not ready for military or adult life.  He provides two character reference letters and several completion certificates for law enforcement related training in support of his application.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 23 April 1958.  He initially completed training as a combat engineer but was later trained and assigned as a medical corpsman.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 25 June 1959, of failure to go to his place of duty.  The approved sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 10 February 1960, the applicant was recommended for separation based on a civil conviction.  He had been tried and convicted on 2 February 1960, of conspiracy, banding together for an unlawful purpose.  He was over 20 years of age at the time of the offense.  He had been sentenced to 6 months confinement. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Effective 10 March 1960, the applicant was separated from active duty under the authority of Army Regulation 635-206, with an undesirable discharge.  He had 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days creditable service and 217 days lost time.

The character reference letters provided by the applicant attest to his dedication to law enforcement, the community, and his family.  The completion certificates provided by the applicant show that he completed several law enforcement related training programs at the state and Federal level.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provided the policy for separation of enlisted personnel.  It 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.  When such separation was warranted an undesirable discharge was 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.  The applicant does not contest the fact that he was found guilty of an offense that resulted in 6 months confinement.  Considering all the facts in the case, separation was warranted based on the seriousness of the civilian court conviction.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board recognizes the applicant’s post-service accomplishments but does not believe that they are sufficiently meritorious on their own to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

__kk___  __tl___  __mm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065231	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020423	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600310	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	A61.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.