MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   .

	BOARD DATE:        January 2000                      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028431

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has improved the quality of his life and that he wants to correct the errors he made as a young adult.

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

On 15 May 1974 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He enlisted for the United States Army Special Unit Enlistment Option (Fourth Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado).  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Carson.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded the military occupational specialty 62M (Rough Terrain Operator) and was assigned to Fort Carson as his permanent duty station.

On 15 September 1974 he was promoted to the rank of private/E-2.

On 11 November 1974 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully possessing marijuana.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $50.00 for one month and 14 days extra duty. 

On 25 February 1975 he accepted an NJP for AWOL and larceny of a candy machine.  His punishment included a suspended reduction in grade from private/E-2 to private/E-1 and a forfeiture of $30.00 for one month.

Between 5 April 1976 and 29 September 1976 the applicant accumulated the following:  four NJP’s under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for three periods of AWOL and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of another suspended reduction in rank and more forfeitures and extra duty.

Between 15 September 76 and 7 January 1977 the applicant accumulated nine counseling statements for having a poor attitude and conduct/appearance; failing to follow instructions; being late for work; and being absent from his place of duty.

On 8 February 1977 the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial for wrongfully appropriating one pair of binoculars.  He was sentenced to a reduction in rank to private/E-1, forfeiture of 35.00 per month for 4 months, and hard labor without confinement for 45 days.

On 17 February 1977 his commanding officer notified him of his intent to separate him from the Army for misconduct under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a, chapter 13, AR 635-200 by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern for shirking.

On 17 February 1973, having been advised of his rights by legal counsel, the applicant authenticated a statement with his initials and signature in which he acknowledged the aforementioned notification, requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, requested personal appearance before a board of officers, requested representation by military counsel, and submitted statements in his own behalf.

On 15 April 1977, at Fort Carson, the applicant and his legal counsel appeared before a board of officers convened to determine whether the applicant should remain in service or be administratively separated.  

After carefully considering the evidence presented the board of officers found, in effect, that the applicant was undesirable for further service because of frequent incidents of misconduct and that rehabilitation efforts were not warranted.

The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service by reason of misconduct with a UOHC discharge certificate.

On 11 May 1977 the appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board of officers.  Accordingly, on 13 May 1977, at Fort Carson, Colorado, the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of creditable service for pay purposes.  

On 7 May 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for misconduct.  Paragraph 13-5a, provided for individuals determined to be unfit by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  Individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a would normally receive a discharge UOHC.

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 Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant’s service was appropriately characterized.

2.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his successful transition to civilian life, however, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

3.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028431	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200001DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790515	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.9301		
2.9221		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.