MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                    11 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:            AR2000038956

	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:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was more severe than similar cases and that he was not provided the opportunity for rehabilitation.  He also states that he was informed that the military was downsizing and that his unit was deactivated.  He further states that he just became aware of the procedures to request for a change in his narrative reason for separation.

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

He enlisted on 27 June 1990 as a wire systems installer.

Beginning in June 1991, the applicant received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for willfully and wrongfully damaging private property of an unknown value and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 7 October 1991
and was found qualified for separation with a 111111 physical profile.

On 30 October 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 disciplinary infractions for 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.

On 1 November 1991, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 12 November 1991.  He had a total of 1 year, 
4 months, and 16 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 3 February 1999.  The ADRB considered the applicant’s entire record of service, including the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of offense.  The ADRB determined that the characterization of service was inequitable because the applicant’s generally accepted personal conduct and performance of duty mitigated his conduct.  

Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to fully honorable.  The Board also determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously not to change the narrative reason on 23 April 1999. 

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 contentions that his discharge was more severe than similar cases and that he was not provided the opportunity for rehabilitation; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

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.  

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

4.  The Board noted the decision by the ADRB to change the characterization of service to honorable.  The Board also noted that the ADRB voted unanimously not to change the reason for discharge in this case.  After review of the entire case, this Board finds no evidence that his narrative reason for discharge was improper or was inequitable.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a change in the narrative reason for his discharge.

5.  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.

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:

RJW____  JS______  RA______  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

CASE ID	AR2000038956	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19911112	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 14	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.