MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            15 July 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98- 05469

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	James G. Hise		Chairperson	
	Ms.	JoAnn H. Langston		Member	
	Mr.	Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms.	Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded in order to use his GI Bill benefits; that he believes in education; that an education would give him a better chance in the job market; and that his overall service record was above average.

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

On 23 February 1994 the applicant was released from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) to enlist in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years.  He enlisted for the US Army First Assignment (No Training) Enlistment Option, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist), the US Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment Program, and the Montgomery GI Bill.  After completing in processing at the reception station at Fort Jackson, South Carolina he was assigned to Germany for duty.  At the time of enlistment he had completed 23 months and 21 days of USAR service and held MOS 92A.

On 23 February 1994 the applicant was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-4.

Between 18 August 1995 and 6 August 1996 the applicant was counseled for the following acts of misconduct:  three times failing to repair, four times failing to obey a direct order from an NCO, failing to do his assigned detail, and unsatisfactory performance during November 1995.

On 30 July 1996 a report of mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for administrative separation.

On 9 August 1996 the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense.  He was advised of his rights and acknowledged notification.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 27 August the unit commander recommended the applicant be separated from the service and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  On 28 August 1996 the intermediate commander recommended approval with a GD. The separation authority waived rehabilitation and approved separation with a GD.  On 6 September 1996 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active military service.

On 12 January 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  To be eligible for education benefits the applicant was required to serve a minimum of 30 months of his enlistment commitment and receive an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

4.  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

___jgh__  ___jhl___  ___tdh___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director