PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:           18 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025321

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was found not guilty of the offense in a military court at Fort Hood, Texas.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 15 May 1987, at Fort Hood, Texas, he reenlisted for 6 years.  At the time of reenlistment the applicant had completed 12 years, 8 months, and 26 days of honorable service; held military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V (Senior Repair Parts Specialist); had attained the rank of sergeant/E-5; and completed two overseas tours in Germany.

5.  The applicant’s record shows that during his service he had completed over six years of overseas service; and had earned two Army Achievement Medals and two Army Good Conduct Medals.  There is no indication of combat service or documented acts of valor contained in the record. 

6.  The applicant’s record contains an extensive disciplinary history which was primarily the result of indebtedness.  On 2 January 1989, the applicant was convicted in Bell County Court, Texas of theft with worthless checks and fined $50.00; order to make restitution in the amount of $117.00; and to pay court costs of $64.00.  On 23 February 1989, a bar to reenlistment was approved on the applicant based on his extensive indebtedness which included at that time five different letters of indebtedness, and eight separate counseling statements.  

7.  On 20 July 1989, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he intended to initiate separation action, under the provisions of Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s long history of failing to pay just debts; his personal problems which interfered with the performance of his duty; and the poor example he set for his peers and subordinates, as the basis for taking separation action.

8.  On 21 July 1989, the applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and his associated rights, the applicant elected to have his case considered by an administrative separation board (ASB).  On 6 September 1989, an ASB convened to consider the applicant’s case, with the applicant and his counsel present.  After careful consideration of the evidence, the ASB found that the applicant had a pattern of misconduct and was undesirable for further service; and they recommended that that the applicant be discharged because of misconduct with an honorable discharge (HD).

9.  On 22 May 1990, the appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the ASB, and directed that the applicant be discharged accordingly.  

10.  On 31 May 1990, the applicant was separated with an HD after completing 
3 years and 17 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 13 years, 1 month, and 9 days of active military service.  

11.  The DD Form 214 issued the applicant contained the following incorrect entries:  Block 25 (Authority for Separation) as reads Chapter 14-12C, 
AR 635-200, should read Paragraph 14-12B, AR 635-200; Block 26 (Separation Code) as reads JKQ, should read JKA; and Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) as reads Misconduct–Commission of a Serious Offense, should read Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct.  These errors were all the result of someone in the discharge process erroneously changing the authority and reason for discharge that was recommended by the ASB and approved by the separation authority.  Further, regulations currently in effect direct that the narrative reason for separation for anyone separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, regardless of the specific paragraph, will be listed on the DD Form 214 as simply “Misconduct”.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure 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.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that, in effect, he was cleared of the offense for which he was discharged in court.  However, this claim is not supported by the evidence of record or the independent evidence submitted by the applicant.  Further, the recommendation of the administrative separation board which was approved by the separation authority was that the applicant be separated based on a pattern of misconduct, not based on commission of a serious offense as was listed on the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant.

2.  The authority and reason for separation recommended by the administrative separation board and directed by the separation authority was erroneously changed by someone in the discharge process.

3.  Regulations currently in effect list the reason for discharge as simply misconduct and do not expand the entry on the DD Form 214 to include the specific category for which a soldier is separated, for example commission of a serious offense or pattern of misconduct.  

4.  Other than the aforementioned erroneous actions which resulted in the errors identified on the applicant’s DD Form 214, the Board found that the discharge process was proper and equitable, with no indication of procedural errors which would have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by changing the following blocks of the DD Form 214 to read as indicated:  Block 25-(Authority for Separation) Paragraph 14-12B, AR 635-200; Block 26 (Separation Code) as reads JKA; and Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) Misconduct.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

___sw___  ___elw__  ___rvo __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr._
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025321	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/08/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1990/05/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A6700	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.  417	144.0156/A01.56	
3.  872	144.9402/A94.02	
4.		
5.		
6.