MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035498

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.   

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

The applicant enlisted on 30 June 1994 for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for duty as a corrections specialist. 

On 7 September 1995 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty (guardmount) and sleeping on post at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $223, (both suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 5 December 1995) and 14 days extra duty.  

On 15 April 1996 NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to obey a lawful order issued by a colonel (playing cards with three inmates in the tool room).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $229 for one month, (suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 12 October 1996) and extra duty for 14 days.  On 4 June 1996, the suspended portion of the applicant’s punishment (forfeiture of $229 for one month) was vacated because the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty (guardmount) on 1 May 1996.  

The applicant was counseled on eight occasions for various infractions.

On 10 June 1996 the applicant was notified of his pending separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and based his recommendation on the applicant’s numerous counseling sessions for various infractions, two NJP’s, and the vacation proceedings.  

The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected to make a statement on his own behalf; however, a statement was not available.

The applicant underwent a medical examination and mental status evaluation and was cleared for administrative separation.  

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation from the service on 18 June 1996 and directed that his term of service be characterized as general under honorable conditions.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge on 21 June 1996 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He had served 1 year, 11 months and 
22 days of total active service.

On 12 January 2000 the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.

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, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  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.

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

RVO____  EB______  RJW____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035498	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960621	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.