MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038727

	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	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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 (HD) and that the narrative reason for separation be changed to a more "neutral explanation."

APPLICANT STATES:  As stated by counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant was a good soldier with only one blemish on an otherwise stellar record.  He adds that he committed a stupid mistake, but was punished out of proportion to the nature of the offense.  Since discharge, the applicant has been a model citizen and has worked diligently to improve himself through education and training.  He has been hired as a deputy sheriff in Georgia, but must work in the correctional facility and not as a sworn officer because of his discharge.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 20 August 1986.  Trained in military occupational specialty 67V (Observation Scout Helicopter Repairer), he was sent to Korea for his first tour of duty after training, arriving there on 14 February 1987.

The applicant became involved in blackmarket activities while in Korea.  On 22 March 1988, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for:  wrongful possession and use of a false identification (ID) card and ration control plate at Camp Casey and Camp Humphrey; impersonating an officer; and violation of a lawful general regulation by purchasing duty free items and transferring them to unauthorized persons for the purpose of production of income (blackmarketing).  He was reduced from private (E-2) to private (E-1), made to forfeit $339.00 per month for 2 months, and given 45 days of restriction and extra duty.  Although not specified on his NJP, there is a counseling statement in the applicant's record relating that he was apprehended by Air Police at Kunsan Air Force Base for blackmarketing.

The applicant's record contains numerous counseling statements indicating that he cashed bad checks and did not perform his job in a satisfactory manner.  

On 28 March 1988, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct, with a General Discharge.  He was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended approval of the discharge action and forwarded it through 

command channels to the separation authority.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a GD.  On 13 April 1988, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a GD.

On 27 April 1988, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense.  He was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 8 days active service on his enlistment.  

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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant committed a serious offense by impersonating an officer and engaging in blackmarket activities.  His blackmarketing was not a "one-time" or "isolated instance" as portrayed in his application.  The applicant went to multiple Post Exchange stores to purchase duty free goods for transfer to Korean nationals in order to make money.  The applicant also had negative performance counseling statements in his records, as well as documents showing that he cashed personal checks knowing that he had insufficient funds to cover those checks.

3.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  The Board acknowledges the applicant's academic and work-related accomplishments; however, these to not mitigate his offenses or provide justification for upgrading his GD to an HD.

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

__jdm___  __ra_____  __cg____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038727	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000829	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880427	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.