MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026658

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that although he feels that he could have been a better soldier, he still believes that he should have been given the opportunity to finish his tour of duty.  He further states that he only received one field grade Article 15.  He needs his discharge upgraded because he need his GI Bill benefits. 

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

On 5 February 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B10 (Medical Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

Between July 1991 and August 1993, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for eight occasions of failing to go at the prescribed time his appointed place of duty, for failure to repair and for operating a vehicle while drunk.  His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

Between July 1991 and September 1993, the applicant was counseled on twenty four different occasion for nine occasions of failure to repair, for five occasions of failure to go at the prescribed time his appointed place of duty, for four occasions of unsatisfactory duty performance, for two occasions of writing bad checks, for two occasions of driving with a suspended license, for disorderly conduct and for driving while intoxicated.    

On 16 November 1993, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct- pattern of misconduct.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant acknowledged notification and 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.

On 13 December 1993, The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 4 January 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, with a discharge under honorable conditions.  He had completed 2 years and 11 months 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 leaves.  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 4 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 aforementioned requirement.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore 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

__inw___  __sk____  __eja___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026658	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930104	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.000	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.