MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           29 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038810

	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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was court-martialed for missing 3 days of extra duty and disrespect to a sergeant (E-5).  He says that he was just a teenager and was in a situation that he could not deal with properly.  He adds that since his separation, he has been a good citizen.

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

He was born on 18 August 1957 and, at age 18, enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 3 February 1976.  Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator) and assigned to a unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with duty as a light vehicle driver.

The applicant was a disciplinary problem.  He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on four occasions:  on 6 August 1976 for failure to go to muster formation; on 25 March 1977 for failure to go to his place of duty; on 19 October 1977 for disrespect and failure to go to his place of duty (2 occasions); and on 16 November 1977 for failure to repair on 2 occasions.  He also was convicted by a summary court-martial on 27 February 1978 of 5 specifications of failure to repair.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $260.00 and confinement at hard labor for 20 days.

The applicant was transferred to the United States Army Retraining Brigade (USARB), Fort Riley, Kansas, for service of his sentence to confinement.  Upon completion of his sentence to confinement, he was placed in a retraining program, but continued to prove himself a disciplinary problem.  On 10 April 1978, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct -- frequent acts of a discreditable nature, with a UOTHC discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant 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 UOTHC discharge.  On or about 14 April 1978, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.  

On 20 April 1978, the applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct.
He was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 2 days active service.

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 compiled a record of numerous minor disciplinary infractions.  His chain of command attempted to deal with these indisciplines through NJP and a summary court-martial.  The applicant was sent to the USARB for service of his sentence to confinement and for retraining.  When he did not respond properly, the USARB chain of command administratively separated him for misconduct.

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 notes that the applicant was 20 years old when he was court-martialed for five specifications of failure to repair.  His contention that he was "just a teenager" as a rationale for his actions is not persuasive.

5.  The Board further notes the applicant's post-service conduct, but this is not sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.

6.  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	AR2000038810	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000829	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780420	
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.