MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           14 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12039
				   AR1999015203

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 discharge date, 28 February 1991, the date listed on his DD Form 214 (separation document) be changed to read
6 March 1991.  He also requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told 6 months after the date of his discharge his characterization of service would be upgraded to honorable.

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

The applicant entered the Army on 30 July 1985 for a period of 4 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 63W (Wheel Vehicle Repairer).  His highest rank attained was specialist four (E-4).

The applicant was assigned to Germany and was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon.  He completed his tour in Germany and was assigned to Fort Ord, California. 

While assigned to Fort Ord the applicant was discharged from the Army on 
15 March 1989 and immediately reenlisted on 16 March 1989 for a period of 
2 years.  He received nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to his prescribed place of duty and for larceny.  He was also counseled on five occasions for failure to report, for financial indebtedness, for leaving his wall locker unsecured, and for failure to complete his rehabilitation for missing muster formation.

The applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense.  The commander stated as the basis for the separation action the applicant’s crimes of larceny and dereliction of duty.  The applicant acknowledged the separation action, waived the right to consulting counsel, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority and on 
28 February 1991 the applicant was discharged from the Army with a general discharge.  (Orders 36-326, Department of the Army, Headquarters 7th Infantry Division, Fort Ord, California, dated 26 February 1991 amended the applicant’s discharge date from 6 March 1991 to 28 February 1991).

The Army Reserve Personnel Center issued a DD Form 215 (correction to DD Form 214) on 25 June 1992 correcting Item 12c of the applicant’s separation document to show that he had completed 5 years, 6 months, and 29 days of total active service, in lieu of the 6 months and 29 days reflected on his DD Form 214.

The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board, and it was denied on 2 September 1998.

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.  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 therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case

3.  No policy exists nor has it ever been a policy for the automatic upgrade of a service member’s discharge.  The characterization of service at separation is based upon the quality of a soldier’s service, including the reason discharge. 

4.  Apparently, the applicant’s separation date was initially projected for 6 March 1991.  However, separation processing was completed and that date was changed to 28 February 1991 by orders dated 26 February 1991.

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

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.