MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-08915A

	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.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	

	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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no statement.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 1992.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).

On 1 February 1995, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using cocaine as discovered by a positive urinalysis.

On 13 February 1995, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for commission of a serious offense.

On 13 February 1995, the applicant acknowledged the separation action. He waived counsel and representation by counsel.

On 14 February 1995, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible and mentally capable of understanding and participating in proceedings.

On 15 February 1995, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. 

On 6 March 1995, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 6 April 1995, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 8 months and 2 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

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 28 August 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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  Considering the reason for his separation, the characterization of his service as general under honorable conditions was and still is appropriate.

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