MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  7 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000042021

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 be changed to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That an earlier “Not in Line of Duty” finding was changed to “In Line of Duty.”

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 23 January 1996.  He completed training as a cavalry scout.  From January to November 1997, the applicant was formally counseled almost twenty times for being late or absent from formations, appointments, and duty assignments.

On 26 September 1997 a line of duty investigation determined that his misuse of prescription drugs and resulting hospitalization was not in line of duty.  On further review the determination was changed to in line of duty.

The applicant was provided a psychiatric evaluation on 17 November 1997 and 5 February 1998.  The evaluations noted that he had an alcohol abuse problem, an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and problems with his duties.  He had no psychiatric disease or disorder and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation.

On 17 February 1998 the applicant was informed of contemplated separation for commission of a serious offense.  After consultation with counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf but, later submitted a brief statement.  The applicant acknowledged his errors as a soldier and that he must accept proper punishment.  He requested separation with an honorable discharge.

The separation authority approved separation with a general discharge.  Effective 9 April 1998 the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  He had 2 years, 1 month, and 22 days creditable service and 25 days lost time.

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, commission of a serious offense, if a punitive discharge would be authorized under the Manual for Courts-Martial.

On 1 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge noting that it was both proper and equitable.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The earlier finding of a line of duty investigation had no bearing on the applicant’s separation processing or the characterization of his discharge.  A later finding of “In Line of Duty” does not provide a basis for upgrading the discharge.

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

__gp___  __pm____  ___mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042021	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980409	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.