MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026792

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		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:  That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since a certain period of time has elapsed, his discharge may be upgraded.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 1989.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

On 13 July 1992, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for willfully damaging a mailbox and a doorbell, military property.  On 19 November 1992, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent from his unit.

Between August 1991 and November 1992, the applicant was counseled on     14 different occasions for infractions including being late to formation, drinking and driving, failure to follow orders, and failing to meet financial obligations.

On 20 November 1992, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  On 14 December 1992, he completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible and mentally capable of understanding and participating in the proceedings.

On 7 January 1993, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for pattern of misconduct.

The applicant was advised of the basis for the separation action.  He waived consulting counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 15 January 1993, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 25 January 1993, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-4 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed 3 years,       4 months and 6 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 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.

On 10 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service of the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  Considering his numerous infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general is appropriate.

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

__wtm___  __ra____  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026792	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000420	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930125	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.