MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           16 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12173

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn 		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he was discharged, he was told either he could request upgrade of discharge or that the upgrade would become active after 6 months from exit from service.  He would like to buy a house using VA benefits, but the mortgage company needs proof of an honorable discharge.

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

He enlisted on 20 June 1983 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia.  In December 1984 he was reassigned overseas to Turkey.  Upon completion of his overseas tour he was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

While serving at Fort Bragg, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment three times under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 4 November 1986 for sleeping on guard duty; on 15 December 1986 for being drunk and disorderly, and having live ammunition in his barracks; and on 31 December 1986 for breaking restriction.

On 26 January 1987 the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for patterns of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant consulted with counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  On 10 February 1987 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 25 February 1987 with 3 years, 8 months and 
6 days of creditable active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  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 6 November 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his 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.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s assertion that he was told an upgrade of his discharge would become active after 6 months is without merit.  The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a request for change or upgrade of discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.