MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC98-10703

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like an upgrade in order to join the Army National Guard; that his misconduct was the result of his wife being pregnant which resulted in excessive phone calls home; and that since his discharge he has improved his financial situation.

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

On 29 January 1985 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 4 years and on 11 February 1986 he extended this initial enlistment for 8 months.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland,  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty 63G (Fuel & Electronic Systems Repairer) and assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas for his first permanent duty station.

The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was specialist/E-4 and he earned the Army Service Ribbon.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, there is an extensive recorded history of financial mismanagement and indebtedness beginning at his first duty assignment.

On 28 July 1986 while assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas a bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant based on his writing dishonored checks, delinquent payments, and indebtedness.  

The applicant was reassigned to overseas duty in Germany in October 1986 and the record shows that on 1 June1987 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 and commission of a serious offense.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s numerous incidents of indebtedness, and writing bad checks as the specific reasons for taking separation action.  The commander further outlined that in the applicant’s 6 months in the unit he had accumulated thousands of dollars of outstanding debts to several military and civilian organizations; in addition, the commander chronicled the applicant’s history of indebtedness dating back to his previous assignment and the fact that the applicant had been barred from reenlistment at his last command, also for financial mismanagement.  Finally, the commander explained that the applicant had failed to respond to rehabilitative efforts and counseling, that he was no longer desirable for further service, and that separation with a GD was recommended.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s notification, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights.  The applicant also authenticated a statement waiving his right to consult counsel and declining to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 30 June 1987 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a GD.  Accordingly, on 
27 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days of active military service.

On 19 June 1997 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 contentions of the applicant, that his misconduct was the result of his being separated from his wife while she was pregnant, have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The record shows the applicant’s history of indebtedness started well before he was assigned overseas, and that he had been barred from reenlistment while still at Fort Riley for this reason. The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

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