MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024275

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		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 (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was wrongfully advised by his unit commander.  His unit commander initiated separation action and gave him the option of being generally discharged.  At the time, he was advised by his unit commander that such discharge would be automatically upgraded to an Honorable Discharge with full benefits.  He accepted the discharged based on
what his unit commander said.

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

He was born on 2 July 1972.  He completed 12 years of formal education.
On 5 February 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B1P (Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 12 February 1992, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for unlawfully striking and choking a female Korean National, committing sodomy by force and without consent on a female Korean National and for being drunk and disorderly.  His sentence was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $529.00 pay and confinement for 20 days.

The applicant‘s record indicated that he accepted two Article 15’s, (1) making a false statement and (2) having brass knuckles in the barracks.  His record also shows that he was reduced to pay grade E-3 on 18 January 1994 and to pay grade E-2 on 8 February 1994.  The particulars surrounding the incidents are missing from his record.

On 1 March 1994, the commander recommended that the applicant be eliminated from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.

A mental and physical evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.

On 15 March 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 23 March 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct with a GD.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 19 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
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 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 7 October 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharged.

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 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 forementioned requirement.

2.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his contentions.  The applicant alleges that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor 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

__rvo___  __dsj___  __cjs___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024275	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19940323	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.