MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1999                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027120

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Judy L. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: No statement submitted.

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

On 7 November 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y10 (Supply Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

Between April and August 1989, the applicant was counseled on six different occasions for failure to repair, for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority, for dereliction in the performance of his duties and for failure to follow instructions.

On 8 August 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being drunk while on duty.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $205.00 pay per month (suspended, automatically remitted if not vacated before 7 November 1989) and 14 days extra duty.  

On 16 August 1989, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  The decision was based on the applicant’s inability to conform to the standards of the military service.

On 25 August 1989, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UMCJ, for disobeying a lawful order.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended, automatically remitted if not vacated before 25 November 1989), and 14 days extra duty.  The suspension of the punishment of reduction to pay grade E-3, imposed on 25 August 1989 was vacated and the unexecuted portion of the punishment was executed.  The vacation of the suspension was based on the applicant’s action on the 28 August 1989, when he failed to go to his appointed place of duty.  

On 6 September 1989, a mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels.  He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. 

On 13 September 1989, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for 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 was advised by legal counsel of the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He waived personal appearance, consideration and representation by counsel before a board of officers.   

On 14 September 1989, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions.  On 
5 October 1989, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, (minor disciplinary infractions, with a general discharge.  He had completed 3 years,
10 months and 29 days 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 21 May 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

__rvo___  __jma___  __mw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027120	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990812	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19891005	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	 DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.60	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.