MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

           IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            12 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022831

	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.

	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ronald G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that three years have passed since he was discharged.  He has worked hard since that time, he has learned from his mistakes and he believes that he deserves an HD.

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

On 1 October 1992, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 14R (Vulcan Crewmember). 

On 5 April 1994, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for over-indulging in intoxicating liquor or drugs to the point that he was unable to perform his duties.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay, restrictions and extra duty (suspended).

On 29 June 1995, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and for failure obey a lawful written order to have guests out of the barracks by a designated time (2300 hours) on duty nights.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, extra duty and restriction.

On 7 February 1996, NJP was imposed against him for wrongfully using marijuana, a controlled substance on or about 14 December 1995.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade 
E-1 (suspended) forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

In an undated memorandum, his commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense with a GD.  The applicant acknowledged notification.  He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects on him and the rights available to him.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  He was not entitled to consideration of his case by a board of officers. 

On an unknown date, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 with a GD.  

Also on an unknown date, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD, for misconduct, under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  

On 18 March 1996, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct.  He had completed 
3 years, 5 months, and 18 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.

Evidence of record indicates that on 15 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter l4 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD or an HD may also be awarded.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 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 Board took into consideration the applicant’s statement that three years 
have passed since he was discharged and that he has worked hard since that time.  The Board congratulates him on his achievements since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for post service accomplishments.  

3.  Neither does the US Army have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges after a specific period of time.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an application for review of discharge is submitted to the Board.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 

4.  The Board determined that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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

__rgh___  __bje____  __jps____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022831	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000412	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960318	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A67.30	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.