MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  1 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000041797

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		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 General Discharge Certificate (GDC) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge Certificate (HDC).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he fell into alcohol because he was away from home and the trains stopped operations at 5:00 PM daily and did not operate at all on the weekends.  He explained how all his misconduct was after duty hours on his personal time.  He explained how Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14 allowed for the issuance of an HDC or a GDC.  He explained that he was hospitalized for alcohol abuse and then placed in weekly counseling sessions, which stopped after 3 months.  He explained the notification process of his discharge proceedings.  He appealed his discharge to his chain of command.  He is ineligible for his school benefits.  He provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), his enrollment in the Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare Program and a copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) in support of his request.

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

During the period 28 August 1986 to 17 August 1987, the applicant served in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.

On 18 August 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 16S (MANPADS Crewman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-4, effective 18 October 1989.

On 19 July 1988, records show his commander referred him to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  At this time, he indicated he used alcohol, amphetamines, barbituates, cannabis products, and hallucinogens.

On 7 September 1988, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being drunk and disorderly, his failure to obey a lawful order, for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer, and for assaulting another soldier on 28 August 1988.  His punishment included a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 1 November 1988, ADAPCP records show he was still in the program.

On 21 November 1988, he was hospitalized for 38 days for alcohol dependence and cannabis abuse.  At that time, he showed a history of alcohol abuse into his early teens (age 14).

On 3 January 1989, upon completion of his hospitalization, he was entered into the ADAPCP for follow-up treatment.  Client Progress Reports were rendered on 3 January, 6 March, 4 June, and 28 September.  On 4 December 1989 he was dropped as a rehabilative failure.

On 11 January 1990, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for assaulting a soldier and for being drunk and disorderly on 18 November 1989.  His punishment included a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.  

On 23 January 1990, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation indicated he met retention standards.

On 1 February 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant of the initiation of a separation action under AR 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his patterns of misconduct.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, acknowledged the notification.

On 13 February 1990, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge of the applicant and directed that he receive a GDC.

On 6 March 1990, he was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the above-cited regulation.  His report of separation indicates that he had 2 years, 6 months and 19 days of creditable service.

On 31 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

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, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will 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 is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

Chapter 30, Title 38 of the US Code established eligibility requirement for participation in the Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill).  It provided that individuals who entered an initial period of active duty on or after    1 July 1985 would be automatically enrolled in the program unless they opted to disenroll within a specific time frame established by the individual services.  Once enrolled in the New GI Bill the individual's basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.  An honorable discharge is required for receipt of entitlements, which amounted to $300.00 per month for 36 months, for individuals who completed at least 3 years of active duty.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts in the case.

3.  There is no evidence that his misconduct events were during or after duty hours; however, when they were committed is not material to the case.  Additionally, the train schedule is not material to this case. 

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

__dj___  ___el___  ___kk___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041797	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110	UP GD to HD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.