MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074758

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no argument or explanation in connection with his request.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri.  However, information obtained from alternate sources show:

He was born on 29 October 1935 and enlisted in Newark, New Jersey, on 6 November 1950 (1 week after his 15th birthday).

The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the available evidence shows that on 8 November 1951, he was discharged under honorable conditions at Fort Dix, New Jersey, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-362, for being a minor (termed a “Minority Discharge” at the time).  He had served 4 months and 10 days of total active service and had 233 days of lost time.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 615-362, in effect at the time, provided the criteria for “Minority” discharges.  It provided, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Army could accept original enlistments in the Army of qualified, effective able-bodied male persons who are not less than 17 years of age, with written consent of the individual’s parents or guardian.  In cases where subsequent evidence has been obtained which shows that an individual’s enlistment or induction is void, the individual will be separated with an honorable or general discharge, as deemed appropriate based on the individual’s record of service.  That regulation was subsequently changed to reflect that such individuals would be released from Army custody and control and that no discharge would be issued. 

Army Regulation 635-200, the regulation currently in effect, classifies such enlistments as “Fraudulent Enlistments” and provides that individuals separated under such circumstances will be released from Army custody and control with no credit for their service and their service will be uncharacterized. 

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 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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  Under today’s standards, the applicant would receive an uncharacterized discharge with no credit for his service.  Given his extensive amount of lost time and the absence of extenuating circumstances, the Board finds that his service does not warrant a fully honorable 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

__bpi ___  ___kf ___  ___rwa__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074758	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1951/11/08	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-362	
DISCHARGE REASON	MINORITY	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  541	144.3400/A34.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.