MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  27 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039137

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		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:  That his discharge was unjust because he was just promoted.  He wants to rejoin the military.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty in pay grade E-3 on 9 May 1997.  After completion of training as a cavalry scout he was assigned to Germany.  On 18 February 1998 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for assault on 30 November 1997.  His blood alcohol content was recorded as .138.  The punishment imposed included reduction to pay grade E-2 and a suspended forfeiture of pay.  He was promoted to pay grade E-3 effective 1 June 1998.

The applicant was formally counseled about his absence from formation on 9 June 1998.  He was absent again on 12 June 1998, and counseled.  He was counseled again on 19 June 1998, for disrespect to an NCO.  He was counseled on 22 June 1998, on the possibility of initiation of separation from the Army for his lack of discipline and inability to meet military standards.  It was noted that since his recent promotion to pay grade E-3 he has become a problem to the unit again.

The applicant had a bar to reenlistment imposed on 1 July 1998.  On 8 July 1998, the commander vacated the suspended forfeiture of pay for his disrespect to an NCO and two occasions of disobeying a lawful order.  Also in the available record is a military police notification that the applicant had been arrested on 4 August 1998, for assault and resisting apprehension.

The applicant was notified of contemplated separation for misconduct on 24 August 1998.  After consulting with counsel the applicant requested representation by counsel and stated that he would submit a statement in his own behalf.  No statement was ever submitted.

The applicant was provided a medical examination that found him to be qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1/1/1/1/1/1/1.  At a mental status evaluation the applicant's behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal and his memory good.  There was no significant mental illness.  The applicant was mentally responsible.

The command forwarded the request for separation based on the arrest for assault, continued disrespect and disobedience of orders, disregard for rules and regulations, and inability to soldier.  The separation authority approved the request and directed separation under honorable conditions.

Effective 11 September 1998 the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b.  He had 1 year, 4 months, and 3 days creditable 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.

On 15 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his general discharge.

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 that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.

2.  The fact that the applicant was promoted on 1 June 1998 does not nullify the command’s disciplinary and administrative separation actions based on his continued substandard behavior.  It appears that he was provided every opportunity to become a satisfactory soldier before final action was taken.

3.  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.

4.  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

_mm____  __cg____  __wm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039137	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000627	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980911	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Para 14-12b	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.