APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He had 14 years of service and because of a conflict of interest with his supervisor his career was ended over lies and deceit with no real benefits.

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

He was born on 23 March 1956.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 1975 and had continuous service until his discharge.  The highest grade he held was Staff Sergeant, E-6.

Between May 1976 and February 1977, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on five different occasions for offenses including failure to obey a lawful order, being out of uniform, missing unit movement and being disrespectful in language towards a superior non-commissioned officer.

Beginning in February 1988, the applicant was counseled on seven different occasions for infractions including being late to work, failure to report for duty, allowing a lady not his own wife to live in his apartment and having an expired inspection sticker on his vehicle .

On 16 March 1988, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for failing to report to his work site.  The letter of reprimand was filed in his local Military Personnel Records Jacket.

On 23 December 1988, the applicant was offered non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his place of duty and willfully disobeying a lawful order.  The applicant demanded trial by        court-martial. 

On 8 May 1989, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on two specifications of failing to obey a lawful order.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-5, to forfeit $500 pay for 1 month and to be restricted for 45 days. Although the military judge had recommended the reduction be suspended for 180 days, the approving authority approved the sentence as it was adjudged.

On 12 July 1989, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

On 31 July 1989, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. 

On 16 August 1989, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for pattern of misconduct. 

On 16 August 1989, the applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He requested his case be considered by a board of officers, he wanted to make a personal appearance before such a board, and wanted representation by counsel before such a board.  He did submit statements in his own behalf.

On 20 December 1989, a hearing was held.  The applicant and witnesses for the applicant appeared before the board.  The board recommended the applicant be separated due to his misconduct.  The board also recommended a rehabilitative transfer and that the discharge be suspended for 6 months.  (The rehabilitative transfer apparently could not be accomplished because Fort Story, VA, being a very small installation, could not accommodate the transfer and a move to Fort Eustis, VA would necessitate permanent change of station costs.  Rehabilitative transfers can only be made at no cost.)

On 22 January 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 8 February 1990, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-5 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed    14 years, 4 months, and 17 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  His awards and decorations included the Army Achievement Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster) and the Good Conduct Medal (4th Award).

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 24 March 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.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. 

3.  The applicant’s contention that his career was ended because of a conflict of interest with his supervisor ignores the facts that an independent judge and jury found him guilty of misconduct in a special court-martial and an independent administrative board recommended he be separated for misconduct.

4.  Considering the applicant’s conviction by one special court-martial and his numerous, though minor, infractions of military discipline his last enlistment, the characterization of his discharge as general is appropriate.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director