PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  2 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000040438

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Barr		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his first period of service be declared as honorable.  He also requests an upgrade of his other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he received an honorable discharge certificate for his first enlistment.  He also performed other acts of merit and has had an exemplary post-service record.  He has been denied assistance by the VA because of his discharge.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted for 3 years and entered active duty on 30 April 1981.  He completed training as a vehicle driver and was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 1 July 1983.

5.  He extended his original 3 year enlistment to 4 years and 8 months on 15 December 1983.  In April 1986 he completed retraining as an armor crewman and on 4 April 1986 he reenlisted for 6 years.  He was promoted to pay grade
E-5 effective 1 July 1989.

6.  From 17 January to 2 July 1990 the applicant issued 8 checks with insufficient funds.  On 16 July 1990 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from his place of duty.  On 22 October 1990 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

7.  On 14 January 1991 the command imposed a local bar to reenlistment.  The applicant chose not to appeal the action.  He was reduced to pay grade E-4 effective 1 February 1991 as punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of marijuana.  Effective 19 March 1991 the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-3 as punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ.  The specific misconduct is not in the available record.

8.  Although the board proceedings are not in the available record, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under other than honorable conditions.  Effective 21 June 1991 the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He had 10 years, 1 month, and 22 days creditable service.  His awards included the Army Achievement Medal with 5th oak leaf cluster, three awards of the Good Conduct Medal, and the NCO Professional Development Ribbon.

9.  On 1 November 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board voted to change the applicant’s narrative reason for separation from misconduct-commission of a serious offense to simply misconduct.  They disapproved his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  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.

11.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his complete term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA or the Service Department determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  Although the applicant may have an exemplary post-service record, this fact alone does not warrant an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.  However, it appears that his honorable discharge of 3 April 1986 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation to allow consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case for the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 3 April 1986.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__fe____  ___wb___  __tk___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Fred N. Eichorn__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040438	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001102	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19910621	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.