MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042207

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr. 		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and did not like taking orders;  that since his discharge, he has not been in any trouble; that he needs a discharge upgrade in order to get a better job.  He provided no supporting documentation with his application.

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

He was born on 5 July 1958 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 9 June 1977; at the time, he was 1 month shy of 19 years of age.  Following completion of all required military training, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Hood, Texas, with duty as an indirect fire infantryman.

During his military service, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on three separate occasions:  on 26 October 1977 for possession of marijuana and for which he was punished by forfeiture of $92.00 and 7 days' correctional custody (suspended for 60 days); on 28 April 1978 for failing to prepare for an inspection and for which he was punished by reduction from private/E-2 to private/E-1, forfeiture of $92.00, and correctional custody for 7 days (all punishments suspended for 180 days); and on 30 June 1978 for absenting himself from his place of duty for 1 day and possession of marijuana and for which he was punished by forfeiture of $92.00 and 14 days of extra duty.  On 5 June 1978, the suspended punishments of 28 April 1978 were vacated for another disciplinary violation.

Complete documentation is not in the applicant's file; however on an unknown date, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct, with a UOTHC discharge.  On 19 October 1978, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.  On 24 October 1978, the applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge, under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct.  He was credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 16 days' active service on the enlistment under review.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter l4 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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for 

misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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.

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 almost 19 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 20 years of age during the period of his indiscipline at Fort Hood.  Further, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age, and there is no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  The applicant’s 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.

4.  The Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life; however, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that this accomplishment did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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

__rvo____  __jpi____  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042207	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19781024	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.