MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 September 1999                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021973

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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, an upgrade of his discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  No contention submitted.

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

On 16 May 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92B10 (Medical Laboratory Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 14 May 1986, while assigned to a unit in Germany, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 45 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant’ s records also contain two CID reports that allude to the applicant’s possession of hashish.  However, the particulars are missing from his files.  

On 23 June 1986, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  The bar from reenlistment was based on the applicant’s misconduct and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated.

A Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status dated 5 July 1986 shows that the applicant was admitted into a military hospital for suicidal gesture. Apparently, the applicant attempted to hang himself in his wall locker.  The applicant was transported to USA hospital where he was admitted for observation.  He was later enrolled in the appropriate follow-up treatment program.

A Line of Duty Investigation was conducted concerning the injuries sustained by the applicant on 5 July 1986.  The investigation determined that the applicant’s mental condition was aggravated by service and not due to his own misconduct.  The investigating officers found that the incident was in the line of duty.  

On 9 July 1986, a report of physical and mental status evaluation indicated that the applicant had no physical or mental defects sufficient to warrant separation through medical channels.  That report also indicated that the applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and adhere to the right.  No character or behavior disorder was diagnosed. 

On 14 July 1986, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel and requested to appear before a board of officers.

On 8 August 1986, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of discharge UOTHC.  On 14 August 1986, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs), with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 29 days of creditable active service.  

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 leaves.  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 30 November 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an 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, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

_mkp____  __tnk___  __jma___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021973	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990902	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860814	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  	144.600	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.