MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            19 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012393

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That after completing 6 years of active duty, he was injured during combat training at his unit and for that reason his chain of command found reason to discharge him unjustly.  That he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal before his unjust discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Discharge from Active Duty), a copy of his promotion orders to sergeant, a certificate of graduation from the NCO Academy, and an appeal to the VA for a motorcycle injury suffered while in Germany.

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

He enlisted on 27 May 1982 and, after training, was assigned to Korea.  Upon completion of his tour in Korea, he was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.  On 28 March 1985 the applicant reenlisted with an assignment option for Europe (Germany).  He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal covering his first 
3 years of service, and was promoted to sergeant on 1 August 1987.

While serving in Germany, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment three times under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 15 September 1986 for attempting to escape from custody of a military policeman; on 9 June 1988 for disobeying a lawful order, being disrespectful in language toward an NCO, and wrongfully using provoking words to an NCO; and on 6 July 1988 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment for the latter incident included reduction in rank to specialist (E-4).

An 18 July 1988  report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history the applicant furnished for the examination, he stated he was “in excellent health.”  A report of mental status evaluation determined that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and he met the medical standards for retention in the Army.

All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  However, the evidence of record shows that on 2 August 1988 the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant was discharged on 7 September 1988 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  He had 6 years, 3 months and 11 days of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 reflects his character of service, block 24, as “under honorable conditions.”  However, the Board notes that the copy which the applicant submitted with his application has been altered to show only the word “honorable” in block 24.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 

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.

On 30 November 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  There is no record of evidence that shows the applicant was awarded a Good Conduct Medal other than the one he was awarded in 1985 for his first 3 years of service.

3.  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.

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012393	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880907	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.