MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11043

	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. Mike  L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the Board should conduct a review of his discharge based on his military personnel file and consider upgrading it to honorable.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 29 November 1983 for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia as a cannon crewman.

On 27 August 1984 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  The punishment included a reduction from private (E-2) to private (E-1), a forfeiture of $139.00, extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 19 September 1984 the applicant was arrested by civilian authorities and charged with breaking and entering.  He was sentenced to 8 years probation and a $2,000.00 fine.  He was returned to military control on 5 October 1984.

On 9 November 1984 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation           635-200, chapter 14, for conviction by civil authorities.

On 28 December 1984 the applicant was counseled by a lawyer concerning his rights and waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.

On 15 January 1985 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, on 23 January 1985 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 1 year, 1 month and 9 days of creditable active service and had 16 days lost time due to civilian confinement.

On 21 July 1998 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge.  On 18 September 1998 the ADRB denied the appeal.

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.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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

___GDP__  __CLA___  __RWG___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director