MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036202

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 narrative reason for separation be changed to a more favorable reason and that his pay grade be corrected.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he never should have been charged in these matters and that he did not understand until after a review of his records in December 1999. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 26 September 1986 as a finance specialist and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 31 January 1990 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 1 February 1990.

Beginning in June 1991, the applicant received numerous counseling statements and nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for poor personal performance, for financial indebtedness, for failure to appear in state court and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and as a result was reduced to the pay grade of E-3.

On 4 December 1991, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s pattern of misconduct.

After consulting with counsel, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same day the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct–pattern of misconduct.

The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 22 January 1992.  He had a total of 5 years, 3 months, and 24 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 19 January 1992.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper but the narrative reason for separation was inequitable.  Accordingly, on 26 May 1995 the ADRB voted to change the narrative reason for discharge to “misconduct”.

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, patterns 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.  

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 noted the applicant’s contention that his pay grade is incorrect; 
however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that he was advanced past the pay grade of E-3 prior to his separation from service.

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

3.  Notwithstanding the decision by the ADRB to change the narrative reason for separation, the Board finds no evidence to show that his discharge at the time was improper or that his characterization was inequitable.

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 this 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:

JLP_____  MHM____  JEA_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

	Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
                                                  of Military Records		

CASE ID	AR2000036202	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000713	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920122	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 14	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.