MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  7 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000040420

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		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:  In effect, that his discharge be revoked.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was unjust after 13 years service.  He states that he was reduced to pay grade E-4 by an Article 15.  He does not understand why they couldn’t have just removed him from the pay grade E-6 promotion list that he was on and let him keep his pay grade E-5.  They reduced him to pay grade E-4 knowing that he could not stay in the Army at that grade.  He had wanted to request a court-martial instead of accepting the Article 15 but he was brainwashed to accept the Article 15 as the best thing.  He states that if he had taken the court-martial, he would not have been discharged.

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

That he enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 May 1972.  He served in the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), Food Services Specialist, and in positions as a cook and first cook.  He advanced to the rank of Specialist 4 (SP4) on 
1 December 1973, was reduced to Private First Class (PFC) on 22 March 1975, was re-advanced to SP4 on 22 July 1975, and then promoted to Specialist 5 on 17 June 1978.  On 16 April 1981, he reenlisted for a 4 year term of service.

On 30 December 1983, the applicant was given a field grade Article 15 for operating a vehicle while drunk at Fort Carson on or about 13 December 1983.  This was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 111, drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle .  The Article 15 punishment was reduction one grade to SP4, forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, and extra duty for 45 days.  Accordingly, he was reduced to SP4 effective 30 December 1983.  His record also indicates that he was further reduced to PFC on 2 October 1984 but no details are given in the record as to the reason.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 15 April 1985 at the expiration of his term of service.  He was discharged as a PFC with total active service of 
12 years, 10 months, and 15 days.

The Reenlistment Eligibility Codes (RE) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 are 
RE3 and RE3C.  The RE3 code indicates a soldier who is not qualified for continued Army service but the disqualification may be waivable.  The RE3C code indicates a soldier who has completed over 4 months of service who does not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of Army Regulation 601-280 (Army Retention Program), paragraph 2-22 (Grade Basic Eligibility Criteria).  This regulation states that, “Soldiers in grade E3 with 3 or more years of active Federal service are not authorized to reenlist.”

The maximum punishment of a field grade officer Article 15 is extra duty for 
45 days, restriction for 60 days, forfeiture of ½ pay for two months, and reduction of one grade for soldiers in pay grade E-5 and above.  The maximum punishment under the Manual for Courts-Martial Article 111 is a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and six months confinement.

According to Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), paragraph 7-29 (Removals), soldiers on the pay grade E-6 promotion list are to be removed from the list if after being placed on the list they are reduced in grade prior to promotion.

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 was properly discharged on 15 April 1985 at the expiration of his term of service at the pay grade of E-3 to which he had been reduced.  No injustice, impropriety, or error was found in his reductions or his discharge.  

2.  Considering the maximum punishments possible for the serious violation of driving while drunk, the applicant’s Article 15 punishment was lenient and fair.  In view of the maximum punishment that could have been given by a court-martial, accepting the Article 15 was a prudent choice.  There is no evidence that the applicant was denied a court-martial or that a court-martial would not have reduced him.

3.  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

__ca___  __tr___  ___wm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040420	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000907	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.131	Promotion	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.