MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040552

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time, he was very immature and he didn’t have his priorities straight.  Not making excuses, he was influenced by stress and peer pressure, thus causing him to make some very poor decisions.  He has learned from this and would like to get his pride back.

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

He enlisted on 25 August 1987 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

On 21 December 1988, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) by his battalion commander under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongfully using some amount of cocaine.  His punishment included reduction in rank from private first class (E-3) to private (E-1).

On 12 May 1989, the applicant was administered NJP by his battalion commander for being absent from his place of duty on 21 April 1989, and for wrongfully using some amount of cocaine. His punishment included reduction in grade from private (E-2) to private (E-1).

On 13 June 1989, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 14 July 1989, the separation authority, a major general, approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 20 July 1989 with 1 year, 10 months and 
26 days of 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, 

which includes abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct upon discovery of a drug offense.

On 14 April 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his 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 which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 
28 years of age at the time of his first drug offense.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jh____  __fe_____  __cjs____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040552	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890720	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A66.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.