MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 February 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023798

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi 		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Huber		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		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, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was supposed to have been general under honorable conditions.  He also charges that some of the things in his record are untrue, such as when he was accused of using profanity toward a superior officer.  

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

He entered active duty on 6 June 1979 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

The applicant has a history of nonjudicial punishment administered under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 9 January 1980, for carelessly discharging a firearm; on 9 January 1981 for failing to report to his appointed place of duty; on 10 February 1981 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty; on 23 February 1981 for three specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty; and on 6 April 1981 for being disrespectful in language toward a superior NCO.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, indicates that he was discharged on 26 May 1981 for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and was issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  The applicant had 1 year, 11 months and 21 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 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.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  In the absence of facts and circumstances, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.  It would appear that his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

__cla___  __jph____  __mvt____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023798	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810526	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A64.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.