MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            17 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12646

	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:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 his general discharge was very unjust because he requested separation from the military after his unit team leader failed in trying to give him nonjudicial punishment for an alleged assault incident.  That after going to the inspector general’s office, he was told that if he wanted out he would get an honorable discharge.

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

He enlisted on 12 November 1986 and, after training, was assigned to Germany. 
Upon completion of his overseas tour, he was reassigned to Fort Stewart,. Georgia.

On 9 August 1990 the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for two specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 25 September 1991 he again received NJP for four specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 2 October 1991 the applicant’s commander imposed a bar to reenlistment on him for continuous indebtedness; recurrent Article 15 punishment; and being late for formations, details and duties.

On 7 November 1991 the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 14 February 1992 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 16 March 1992 with 5 years, 4 months and 5 days of creditable 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 16 January 1997 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.  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.

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

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.