MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:             12 August 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC98-09099

	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.	Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Member	
	Mr.	George D. Paxson		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 serious personal problems affected his judgment and that his chain of command failed to listen to and respond to his problems.

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

On 8 October 1991 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 4 years and 
16 weeks at the age of 20.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer) with the additional skill identifier (ASI) of P (Parachutist) and assigned to overseas duty in Korea for his first permanent duty station.

The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was specialist/E-4.  He earned the Army Service Ribbon; the National Defense Service Medal; two Army Achievement Medals; and the Overseas Service Ribbon.  The applicant’s record is void of any additional 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 three separate occasions.

On 10 November 1974 the applicant accepted a summarized NJP for dereliction of duty.  His punishment for this offense was an oral admonition and 13 days of  restriction and extra duty.

On 6 January 1995 the applicant accepted a second NJP for failure to go to his prescribed place of duty on 16 December 1994.  The resultant punishment included a reduction in grade to private first class/E-3; forfeiture of $248.00 (suspended); and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 21 June 1995 the applicant accepted his last NJP for being AWOL from 12 to 16 June 1995.  His punishment included a reduction in grade to private/E-2; forfeiture of $223.00 (suspended); and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 19 July 1995 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him, under the provisions of chapter 14 , AR 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s numerous violations of Article 86 of the UCMJ (AWOL) which included a 3 day AWOL; repeated failures to report to company formations; and multiple incidents of failing to report to his place of duty, as his reasons 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.

On 24 July 1995 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a GD.  Accordingly, on 
3 August 1995 the applicant was discharged after completing 3 years, 9 months, and 28 days of active military service and accruing 3 days of time lost due to AWOL.

On 9 January 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, and 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