MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027425

	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.

	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes his GD discharge was unfair because he was discharged 2 days before his 3 year enlistment was up.  He further expresses that he thought hid discharge was an honorable until he went to get his Veterans administration (VA) identification card at the Atlanta regional office.  He request that his enlistment time and discharge date be reviewed as supporting documentation and provides no additional documentation to support his claim.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 8 April 1986.  He completed his basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and began his advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31M00 (Multi-channel Transmission Systems Operator) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He failed this training and was reassigned AIT in MOS 31V00 (Unit Level Communications Maintainer) on 29 August 1986 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
On 20 February 1987, he failed this training and on 3 March 1987 he was assigned to duties after being successfully trained in MOS 13B00 (Cannon Crewman) at Fort Sill.

The applicant then received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  On 1 September 1987, he received his first NJP for derelict in the performance of his duties, in that he failed to properly prepare for inspection on 15 July 1987 and failing to go to his place of duty on 18 August 1987.  His punishment include reduction to pay grade 
E-2, which was suspended for 6 months and 14 days extra duty.  The suspension was vacated on 1 October 1987 for disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 22 September 1987.

He received his second NJP on 11 November 1987, for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards his Staff Sergeant on 27 September 1987. His punishments included forfeiture of $172.00 pay; 14 days extra duty and 
14 days of restriction

On 1 March 1988, he received his last NJP for displaying with intent to deceive and alter an official sick call slip on 11 February 1988; for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards an NCO on 11 February 1988; and for disobeying a lawful order from the same NCO on the same day.  His punishments included forfeiture of $156.00, 14 days extra duty and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 16 March 1988, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination, which cleared him for separation.

On 17 March 1988, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200 for misconduct commission of a serious offense.  The applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, and was informed of the impact of a less than fully honorable discharge.  He elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  The approving authority, on 23 March 1988, waived rehabilitation and approved the separation action of a GD. 

On 31 March 1988, the applicant was separated with a GD.  He had 1 year, 
11 months and 29 days of creditable service and no lost time.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.  

The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 24 July 1980, seeking a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB, after considering his case on 1 October 1981, denied his request.

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 included minor disciplinary infarctions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and exertion or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted in certain cases.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of any procedural errors that would jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The Board notes that the applicant was separated after approximately 
2 years service, not the 3 years of service that he claims.  Further, his substandard record of service clearly supported the separation action at that time in his career.

5.  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

  ESC         SK               KAN            DENY APPLICATION

				Karl F. Schneider
				Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027425	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000302	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880331	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200 CH14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.50	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.		
2.	A92.17	
3.	A92.23	
4.	A92.35	
5.	A01.00	
6.