MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:              15 July 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER       AC98-08187

	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.	James C. Hise		Chairperson	
	Ms.	JoAnn H. Langston		Member	
	Mr.	Thomas D. Howard Jr.		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/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served with dignity and pride and his punishment should not carry over into civilian life; that he is an expecting father and being denied his GI Bill will make it harder to support his family; and that he contributed to the GI Bill while he served and should be entitled to the benefit.

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

On 16 February 1995 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 
4 years at the age of 20.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, which included the basic airborne course, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 43E (Parachute Rigger) and awarded the additional skill identifier of P (Parachutist), which included award of the Parachutist Badge.

The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was private first class/E-3.  His only awards were the Army Service Ribbon and the National Defense Service Medal.  The applicant’s record is void of any acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, the record does contain a  history of disciplinary infractions which includes the applicant’s  acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.

On 12 June 1996 the applicant accepted an NJP for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 19 March 1996.  His punishment for this offense was 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 3 July 1996 the applicant accepted a second NJP for breaking restriction.  The resultant punishment included a reduction in grade to private/E-1 and forfeiture of $437.00 (suspended).

On 8 August 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 the applicant’s wrongful use of marijuana as his reason for the action and he 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 13 August 1996 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a GD.  Accordingly, on 
27 August 1996 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 6 months, and 12 days of active military service.

On 11 May 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 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.  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.  

3.  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.

4.  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