APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge be upgraded to honorable and that his reentry eligibility code be changed to a 3 so he can reenlist.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he feels he was being harassed to the point that he could not concentrate on his job.  He believes the mental stress led to his not wanting to complete his term and to the type of discharge he did receive.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 December 1993.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).

The records shows the applicant received two counseling statements, one for disrespect towards a non-commissioned officer and one for sleeping on duty.

On 1 August 1995, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disrespect towards a  non-commissioned officer.

On 23 January 1996, the applicant was self-referred to the mental health clinic.

On 26 January 1996, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 29 January, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings, mentally responsible, and psychiatrically cleared for all administrative actions the command deemed appropriate.

On 5 February 1996, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to obey a lawful order  to polish his boots and report back in 15 minutes.

On 14 March 1996, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.

On 14 March 1996, the applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He requested counsel.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.

On 20 March 1996, a bar to reenlistment was approved.  The bar lists a Provost Marshal Office blotter extract as an enclosure, but the document is not available. The applicant made no statements in his own behalf and did not appeal the bar.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 23 March 1996, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed           2 years, 3 months, and 22 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

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.

On 5 June 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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.  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.  The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action his command deemed appropriate.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  Considering his record of numerous, though minor, infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general is appropriate.

3.  The applicant’s reentry code on his DD Form 214 was corrected on 24 July 1997.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director