MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078566

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he entered the Army in October 1959, and had only one misconduct prior to his separation on 30 January 1961.  He also states that during his enlistment, he had a six month extension of foreign service in Germany.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20), Service Record (DA Form 24), and separation document (DD Form 214).

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

On 15 October 1959, the applicant was inducted into the Army and entered active duty.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 321.10 (Lineman).

The applicant’s DA Form 24 documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  Section I (Appointments, Promotion, or Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 confirms that he was promoted to private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3) on 6 April 1961, and that he was reduced to private/E-2 on 23 June 1961, for misconduct.  Section 10 (Remarks) contained the entry “Not Recommended For Further Service.” 

On 15 August 1961, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment against him.  The reasons cited for the action by the unit commander were the applicant’s repeated acts of misconduct, lack of motivation, inadaptability, and absence of interest.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the bar to reenlistment and his understanding of the basis for the action.  On 
15 September 1961, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority.

The specific facts and circumstances in regard to the processing of the applicant’s request for discharge and its approval are unclear.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge.  This separation document confirms that on 30 January 1962, he was discharged from the Army under honorable conditions and was issued a GD.  It also verifies that the authority for separation was paragraph 7, Army Regulation 635-205, and the reason for discharge was early release of overseas returnee. It also shows that at the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months, and 16 days of creditable active military service.

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

Army Regulation 15-185, the regulation that governs the operation of the Board, sets forth the procedures for processing requests to correct military records.  Paragraph 2-9 states, in pertinent part, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity and the burden of proving error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence rests with the applicant.

Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, directed that the discharge approval authority determine the characterization of service a soldier would receive at the time of separation.

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 contention that his GD should be upgraded to an HD because his discharge was based on one isolated act of misconduct.     However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  Regulatory guidance in effect at the time of the applicant’s release from active duty mandated that the discharge approval authority determine the characterization of service a soldier would receive.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. 

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing.  However, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s acts of misconduct, lack of motivation, inadaptability, and absence of interest resulted in him being barred from reenlistment.  Further, the record shows that he was reduced in rank due to misconduct.  Therefore, coupled with the presumption of regularity referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this 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

__RWA__  __KYF___  __BPI__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078566	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620130	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-205.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early Release Overseas	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.