PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:               27 May 1998             
	DOCKET NUMBER:       AC98-07956

	 
	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.	Alfredo Campo		Chairperson	
	Ms.	June Hajjar		Member	
	Mr.	Fred K. McCoy		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 was told before leaving the Army that he could get his GI Bill; that he could get his SGLI; in addition; that he needs the upgrade to further his education and get a better job

4.  The applicant’s military records show that the applicant originally entered the Regular Army on 14 August 1989 for 4 years at the age of 19.  The applicant successfully completed basic training and graduated from advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  Upon completion of training the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) and was assigned overseas to Korea for his first permanent duty station.

5.  The applicant attained the rank of specialist/E-4 while serving in Korea and, upon completion of his tour, his service was recognized with the award of the Army Achievement Medal, for meritorious service, and an Overseas Service Ribbon for successful tour completion.  The applicant was then assigned to Fort Eustis, Virginia.

6.  During his tenure at Fort Eustis the applicant successfully completed the requirements for and was awarded the Mechanic’s Badge and the Driver’s Badge.  Additionally, he completed a 2 month temporary duty assignment in Somalia, an imminent danger area, for which he earned his second Army Achievement Medal; for meritorious service, while under hostile fire; the Joint Meritorious Unit Award; and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for participation in Operation Restore Hope.

7.  On 28 April 1993, at Fort Eustis, Virginia, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  His record at that time was totally free of any record of disciplinary problems and he had received the Good Conduct Medal.  The applicant’s disciplinary problems began in November 1993 and concluded in June 1994.  There is no record of courts-martial, only one nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, and nine counseling statements.  The offenses are limited to one AWOL of 
12 days and failure to repair by missing formations.

8.  His commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant, under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct.  His commanding officer indicated that the aforementioned misconduct was the reason for his action and that he would recommend the applicant receive a GD.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant acknowledged this notification.  Having consulted with legal counsel, the applicant requested representation by counsel and indicated that he would submit a statement in his own behalf.  The latter statement is not in his file.  On 15 September 1994 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge and issuance of a GD.  Accordingly, on 
22 November 1994 he was discharged after completing only 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of the current enlistment, and a total of 5 years, 2 months, and 
27 days of active military service.

9.  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.

10.  On 20 August 1996 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied the applicant’s claim for education benefits based on his receipt of a GD.

11.  On 30 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found the discharge process was proper in all respects.  In their denial, the ADRB notified the applicant that VA benefits were not within its purview and referred him back to the VA.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 14, for the good of the service, for misconduct, was administratively correct and in conformance with the applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the discharge process contained procedural errors that could have jeopardized his rights.

2.  While the applicant’s AWOL offense and incidents of misconduct are not condoned by the Board, consideration should be given to the fact that by all indications the offenses were minor and an aberration from the applicant’s normal good conduct.  The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge.  However, in view of the honorable nature of the preponderance of his total service, the applicant’s honorable discharge of 27 April 1993 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.  To do otherwise would be an injustice upon him by denying him the right to VA education benefits and to overlook or deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of his service was honorable, and included meritorious service in an imminent danger area. 

3.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider his honorable discharge of 27 April 1993 as a complete and unconditional separation from military service.  The applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 27 April 1993.

2.  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