MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040400

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		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 the narrative reason for separation contained on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect honorable service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was held past his expiration of term of service (ETS) by his command so that his characterization of service could be deemed as due to misconduct and that the injustice has been endured long enough.  He further states that he has done many positive things since his discharge which include receiving a college degree, working at a local college and applying for law school, all the same time that he had a thirty percent disability rating for injuries received while in the service.  He continues by stating that he received an honorable discharge and that it should not be diminished by showing that it was due to misconduct. 

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

He enlisted on 19 May 1990 for a period of 2 years and 15 weeks under the Army College Fund enlistment option and training as a Cannon Crewman.  He successfully completed his training and was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 7 May 1991.

On 9 March 1992, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for making a false official statement with intent to deceive.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, extra duty and restriction.

On 5 May 1992 NJP was imposed against him for being absent without official leave (AWOL) from 7 April to 14 April 1992.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. 

The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment on 27 May 1992 and cited the applicant’s disciplinary record and failure to respond to counseling as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant elected not to submit matters in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 28 May 1992.  The applicant elected not to submit an appeal.

The applicant’s records also show that he went AWOL from 17 August to 28 August 1992; however, there is no indication in the available records to show that any punishment was imposed for that offense.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the records do contain a duly constituted DD Form 214 which shows that he was honorably discharged on 10 September 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation   635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – patterns of misconduct.  He had served 2 years, 3 months, and 12 days of total active service and had 12 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change in the narrative reason for his separation and cited essentially the same reasons as he has cited to this Board.  

The ADRB determined that his narrative reason for separation should be changed to simply “Misconduct”; which is the current standard used for such separation but opined that any further change was unwarranted. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides the narrative reasons for separation to be entered on the DD Form 214 based on the authority for the separation.  It provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel who are involuntary separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph  14-12b will be given a narrative separation of “Misconduct.”

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect, with no violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the applicant’s narrative reason for separation, as changed by the ADRB, appears to be correct when compared to the available circumstances and the applicant’s overall record of service.

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 this 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.

NOTE:  The Board notes that at the time a new DD Form 214 was prepared to reflect the ADRB decision to change the narrative reason for separation, a typographical error was made on the DD Form 214 which changed the separation code from “JKM” to “JMK”.  Accordingly, The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), St. Louis is requested to make the necessary corrections to reflect the proper separation code of “JKM” on the records of the individual concerned.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mm__  ___tb ___  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040400	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/09/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191	110.0200/Rsn & Auth	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.