PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF.

	BOARD DATE:              29 July 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AC98-07704

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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.	Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Ms.	Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr.	George D. Paxson		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	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)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

3.  The applicant states in effect, that he spent 4 years and 26 days on active duty, not 1 year and 26 days; that he was having personal problems which caused him to drink heavily; that he now believes he blacked out when he was drunk; and that his action was just a way for him to get home.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he reenlisted, for the period of service under review, on 29 March 1989 while at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 3 years, 7 months, and 26 days of honorable service; attained the rank of specialist/E-4; held military occupation specialty (MOS) 36M (Wire Systems Operator); and earned the Army Commendation Medal; the Noncommissioned Officer’s Professional Development Ribbon; two Army Achievement Medals; the Good Conduct Medal; and the Parachutist Badge.

5.  The applicant’s record, for the period under review, shows that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant/E-5 on 1 August 1989, and that he earned a first oak leaf cluster to his Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service from 12 April 1987 to 30 August 1989.  The record documents no other acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

6.  On 14 November 1989 the applicant accepted a field grade nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ with three specifications, for violation of Articles 93 and 134.  The first specification was for maltreating a private first class (PFC), a person subject to his orders, by using his rank to obtain homosexual favors; the second specification was for wrongfully communicating a threat to kill to a PFC; and the third specification was for committing an indecent assault on a PFC.  The resultant punishment included a reduction in rank to specialist/E-4; forfeiture of $520.00; and 45 days of extra duty.

7.  On 19 November 1989 the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was contemplating the initiation of action to separate him, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  The unit commander cited the incidents outlined in the NJP, of 14 November 1989, as the reasons for his action, and indicated he would recommend the applicant receive a GD.  

8.  On 28 November 1989 the applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him, completed his election of rights.  The applicant elected to waive consideration of his case before an administrative separation board; waived personal appearance before an administrative separation board; and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant also attested to his understanding that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a GD. 

9.  On 29 November 1989 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD.  Accordingly, on 
22 December 1989 the applicant was discharged, and issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which credited him with 
1 year and 26 days of active duty this period, and 3 years of prior active service.

10.  The DD Form 214 issued the applicant contained the following information in the entries indicated:  Block 12a (Date Entered AD This Period) 27 November 1988; Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) 1 year and 26 days; Block 12d (Total Prior Active Service) 3 years; and Block 18 (Remarks) contained no entry pertaining to honorable service or immediate reenlistments as required by regulation.  The applicant was not authorized to receive and the record does not contain a DD Form 214 for his honorable prior service from 29 July 1985 through 28 March 1989.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) contains the policy and procedural guidance for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for enlisted members discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  Specific block by block preparation instruction for the DD Form 214 states that:  Block 12a will contain the beginning date of an enlistment or tour of active duty for which a 
DD Form 214 was not issued; Block 12c will contain the period of service arrived at by subtracting Block 12a from Block 12b; and that the first entry in Block 18 (Remarks) will be a list of periods of service for which a DD Form 214 was not issued (e.g. “Immediate reenlistments this period: 761218-791001; 791002-821001.  ” However, for soldiers who have previously reenlisted without receiving a DD Form 214, and who are being separated with any characterization of service except “Honorable” the following statement will appear as the first entry in Block 18, “Continuous Honorable Active Service From (first day of service for which a DD Form 214 was not issued , “e. g. , 761218) until (date before commencement of current enlistment, e.g. , 821001) then enter the specific periods of service as outlined above.

12.  On 20 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found the discharge process was proper in all respects.
13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board found the applicant’s contentions that he was having personal problems which caused him to drink heavily; that he now believes he blacked out when he was drunk; and that his action were only a way for him to get home, were not supported by either the evidence of record or the independent evidence submitted by the applicant.  The Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

2. 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 in regards an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The Board found the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service; however, the Board did conclude that the DD Form 214 issued the applicant contained administrative errors and was not prepared in accordance with AR 635-5.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by preparing the DD Form 214 in accordance with AR 635-5 by changing the entries in Blocks 12a (Date entered AD This Period), 12c (Net Active Service This Period), and the first entry of Block 18 (Remarks) of the 
DD Form 214 issued the applicant on 22 December 1989.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a new 
DD Form 214 that reflects that the following corrections:  Block 12a - 851127; Block 12c - 4 years, 0 months, 26 days;  Block 18  - “Continuous Honorable Active Service From 851127 Until 890328.”

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON