MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041483

	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:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he received an honorable discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) and that he needs his discharge under other than honorable conditions upgraded to an honorable as well because he needs medical benefits to help support his family of a wife and two children at a time in which his health is bad.

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

The applicant enlisted in the USAR in St. Louis, Missouri on 4 May 1978 for a period of 6 years and remained in the USAR until he was honorably discharged on 26 August 1979 for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army. 

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 December 1979 for a period of 4 years and training as a stock control and accounting specialist.  He completed his advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lee, Virginia and was transferred to Fort McClellan, Alabama on 10 March 1980.

On 24 July 1980 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for forging a signature on a check, for stealing money ($45.00), for failure to go to his place of duty and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 July to 16 July 1980.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.

He had NJP imposed against him on 2 September 1980 for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days.

On 1 October 1980, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days.

On 6 November 1980, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and for two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 12 February 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation      635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He had served 1 year, 2 months and 7 days of active service during his current enlistment.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate and there have never been any automatic provisions for upgrading such discharges.

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 separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.  Additionally there have never been any automatic provisions for upgrading administrative discharges.  However, applications could be made 2-years after separation to the ADRB and prior to the 15-year statute of limitations.  There is no evidence to show that the applicant made such an attempt. 

4.  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.

5.  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

___slp___  __mw___  __tlp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041483	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/11/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/02/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, ch 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  626	144.6000/A60.00/MISCONDUCT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.