MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028389

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 discharge from the Reserve under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he, as a 38-year old father and husband, takes full responsibility for his actions of a 17-year old irresponsible kid.  He wants it clear that he finished “boot camp” and training successfully, and after fulfilling approximately 1 year of his Reserve commitment, in the “wisdom” of an 18-year old, he decided he was wasting his time.  Twenty years have passed, and although he will reap no gain, he will at least have attempted to correct the biggest glaring mistake of his life, and maybe some relief for his conscience.

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

He enlisted in the Reserve on 21 April 1978 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty for training on 8 September 1978 to attend basic and advanced individual training.

The applicant was released from active duty on 14 December 1978 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, with 3 months and 7 days creditable active service, and returned to his Reserve unit.

The applicant has a history of unexcused absences from scheduled unit training assemblies since his release from active duty.  On 27 October 1980, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated fort misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 7, by reason of unsatisfactory participation.  On 6 March 1981, the applicant was transferred to the US Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) under other than honorable conditions as an unsatisfactory participant.

The applicant was discharged from the Army Reserve on 18 April 1984 and was issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 is presumed to be administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  This Board also presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption. 

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

__rvo___  ___sk____  __le____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028389	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840418	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR135-178 CH7	
DISCHARGE REASON	A63.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.