MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             17 June 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC98-07726

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Curtis W. Barbee Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms.	Karen L. Wolff		Member	
	Mr.	Edward Williamson		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

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

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he desires to gain education benefits to complete school and that his service was honorable.

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

On 28 September 1993 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years at the age of 18.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember), and was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas for his first permanent duty station.

The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was private first class/E-3 and he received the Army Service Ribbon; the National Defense Service Medal; and the Army Achievement Medal.  There are no other acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the record.  

The applicant was cited as a suspect on a Kansas Standard Offense Report dated 12 December 1995.  The report indicated the applicant stole a car and later wrecked it.  The stolen car was found at the scene of an accident with the applicant still in the vehicle.  There is no record containing data on the court determined outcome of the case.  The applicant indicates he plead no contest.

On 19 April 1996 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  The unit commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s theft of a vehicle, driving at high speeds in dense fog, and possibly driving under the influence of alcohol.  He also recommended the applicant receive a GD.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s notification, consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights.  The applicant also authenticated a statement which indicated he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf; that he understood he could be ineligible for veterans benefits, under both Federal and State law; and that he could encounter substantial prejudice if he were issued a GD.

On 27 May 1996 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a GD.  Accordingly, on 
7 June 1996 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 8 months, and 10 days of active military service.
On 13 February 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

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.

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 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.  

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.

3.  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