MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 12 June 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003085954

         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. Luis Almodova		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 he would like for someone to understand that he was young and immature and was not able at the time to serve and respect his country as he should have. He states that he was 17 at the time and was forced by his environment at home to enlist. He was uneducated with no sense of direction in his life.

He remembers his counselor from the Maryland Corrections Center telling him it was in his best interest to sign away his rights or he would be sent from jail to jail. He now believes if he had been provided good counsel, he would not have signed his rights away.

He adds that he has been married for 29 years and has a daughter who is also 29 years of age. He regrets that he made mistakes that he cannot undo, but maybe now he can right some wrongs to better his life.

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

The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 2 October 1968. The applicant's parents gave their consent for his voluntary induction because the he was under 18 years of age. When inducted, he had completed 7 years of formal education.

Following completion of basic combat training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he was sent to Fort Bliss, Texas, on 6 December 1968, to undergo advanced individual training (AIT) in the military occupational specialty (MOS) 13F, Automatic Weapons Crewman.

On 22 October 1968, the applicant received an Article 15 under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for willfully disobeying an order from his superior noncommissioned officer, to participate in physical training, on 21 October 1968. As his punishment, he was restricted to the battalion area for thirty days, ordered to perform extra duties for 15 days, and to forfeit $50.00 for two months. The applicant did not appeal the punishment. On 20 November, the punishment of forfeiture of $50.00, for one month, was remitted.

On 8 January 1969, while he was still in AIT, the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) by his unit, B Battery, 1st Training Battalion (Automatic Weapons), 1st AIT Brigade.

---

On 13 January 1969, the applicant returned to military control at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, and on 20 March 1969, he was arraigned and tried before a Summary Court-Martial. He was found guilty of being AWOL from 8 January until on or about 13 January 1969, of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 27 February 1969, and of breaking restriction on 2 March 1969. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for one month and to forfeit $68.00 for one month. The sentence was adjudged and approved on 20 March 1969.

The applicant departed AWOL from his unit, Special Processing Battalion, Fort George G. Meade, on 21 April 1969. While he was AWOL, he was arrested on 3 June 1969, by civil authorities in Waldorf, Maryland, for housebreaking and possession of a stolen vehicle. The applicant was incarcerated in the LaPlata County Jail to await trial.

On 22 September 1969, the applicant appeared in the Charles County Circuit Court. He pleaded guilty and was ordered to serve not more than 18 months in the Department of Corrections, Baltimore, Maryland.

On 2 January 1970, the applicant was notified that a recommendation was being made for his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to his conviction by civil authorities and that an undesirable discharge was being recommended.

On 3 February 1970, the applicant waived his rights to be represented by counsel, to submit a statement in his own behalf, to appeal the conviction of housebreaking, and to have his case considered by a board of officers. The applicant retained a copy of the waiver of his rights. In addition, he acknowledged that he was aware that an undesirable discharge was recommended and as a result, he would be deprived of many benefits from the Federal and State government. He further acknowledged that he would encounter substantial problems as a result of an undesirable discharge.

On 6 February 1970, the applicant's battalion commander requested authority for the discharge of the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, based on his [the applicant's] civil conviction. He recommended that the applicant be separated with an undesirable discharge. The approval authority, a colonel, approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge by reason of conviction by civil court and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate.

The applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1, with an undesirable discharge on 18 February 1970 under the provisions Army Regulation 635-206. The applicant's character of service was characterized as

---

under other than honorable conditions. He was awarded a SPN (separation program number) Code, 284, which identifies individuals who are discharged due to conviction by civil court or adjudged to be a juvenile offender during the current period of active duty. On his discharge date, the applicant had 4 months and 21 days of creditable service and 356 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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. Discharge proceedings were accomplished in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. There is no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize the applicant's rights. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of service.

2. 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.

3. The Board sympathizes with the applicant and understands his desire to have his undesirable discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge; but, there is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who were inducted either voluntarily or involuntarily and served their country successfully.

4. The Board has determined that by entering into conduct that resulted in his being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for housebreaking and stealing a vehicle, the applicant diminished the quality of his service and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance expected of Army personnel; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.

---

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

__rvo___ __jpi___ __ecp___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085954
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030612
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700206
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206
DISCHARGE REASON	A61.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.6100
2.	144.6100
3.
4.
5.
6.