MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 November 2000                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042470

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Martha E. Schuler		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when he entered the Army he was willing to give his life for his country.  The injust was people errors.  He further states that he cared about the Army then and he cares now.

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

On 28 May 1974, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
4 years with 1 year, 10 months and 1 day of prior active service.  His military occupational specialty was 11B10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

Between January 1976 and January 1977, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to repair, for the wrongful possession of Marijuana, for being absent without leave from 16 to 23 March 1977 and for writing bad checks.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-2. 

On 31 March 1977, a mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 7 April 1977, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for misconduct.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  

On 2 May 1977, the Commanding General approved the recommendation, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade, waived rehabilitative requirements and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 16 May 1977, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for misconduct with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 2 years, 11 months and 6 days of creditable active service and 13 days of lost time during this enlistment. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for misconduct, and provides, in pertinent part, that 
Individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for misconduct. 

On 21 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an 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.  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 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.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant exhibited unacceptable pattern of misconduct.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__wtm___  __jea___  __mes___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042470	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001116	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770516	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.