MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026424

	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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a “P3” profile around April (year not specified), but the people on duty in the rear area did not acknowledge that he had doctor appointments to make.  That started making a difference about his ability to perform.  He wants back pay because if they had taken better care of a disabled soldier, maybe he would still be in as a fine soldier.  The NCOs in the rear detachment were not taking care of business like they were supposed to; when they weren’t taking him to his appointments he was feeling terrible, so he started getting angry.  He acknowledges that may have been a mistake, but still, he contends, somebody over him also has to accept responsibility.

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

He enlisted on 30 January 1996 and, after training, was assigned to Germany.

During the month of November 1996, the applicant received four formal counseling statements concerning suspension of his check cashing privileges, failure to report for extra duty, failure to be properly relieved from performing extra duty, and disrespect to an NCO.

On 1 November 1996, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for dishonorably failing to place or maintain sufficient funds in the bank for payment of four checks in full upon presentation for such payments, and four specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 17 December 1996, the applicant was administered NJP for failure to place or maintain sufficient funds in the bank for payment of 25 checks in full upon presentation for such payments, failure to report to his appointed place of duty, sleeping on duty, and being disrespectful in language toward a superior NCO.

On 8 January 1997, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 21 January 1997, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 25 January 1997 with 11 months and 26 days of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  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.

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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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	AR1999026424	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	199701125	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.