MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:       25 November 1998      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-06795

	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	
	Ms. Gale Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		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 records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was not properly decided based on facts that have arisen since his active service; that he has been found to have a 40 percent disability that was not properly diagnosed at the time of his discharge, and that all the incidents relating to his discharge were due to his disability.

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

On 22 March 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 2 years and 16 weeks.  On 7 December 1990, he reenlisted under the Army Service School option, for a period of 3 years.

Between 15 December 1989 and 1 November 1990, he received numerous 
counseling statements for being disrespectful to an superior noncommissioned officer, failure to report to his appointed place of duty; missing formation; failure to report for physical training (PT); and disobeying a lawful order.  

On 7 February 1990, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful to a superior commissioned officer.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended), forfeiture (suspended), restriction and extra duty.

On 17 January 1991, a mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

On 31 January 1991, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 4 February 1991, his commander notified him of his intent to initiate his separation under the provisions of chapter 14-12a, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct.

On 4 February 1991, having been advised of his rights by legal counsel, the applicant authenticated a statement with his signature in which he acknowledged his commanders notification, indicated he understood the ramifications of the action being taken, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and 
and elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.

On 12 February 1991, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge certificate.
On 19 February 1991, he was given a Letter of Reprimand for driving under the influence of alcohol on 31 January 1991.   

On 1 March 1991, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of the above cited regulation.  His Report of Separation indicates he had 1 year,        11 months and 10 days of creditable service.

On 26 May 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board 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, conviction 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.

2.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  There is no evidence in the available records nor has the applicant provided documentation to substantiate his claim that his discharge was improper, or that incidents leading to his discharge were related to his disabilities.  

4.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with applicant’s overall record of military service.

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

____jev____  __jns___  __rvo___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director