MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042519

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		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 an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was lied on by two privates.  He states that no assault was committed and no warrants were ever taken out against him.  He further states that his First Sergeant was a racist and prejudiced and that he was not given a fair chance because he was having a relationship with a white female.

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

On 4 April 1978, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-2.  He successfully completed his training as a motor transportation operator.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 26 August 1987, for willfully breaking the front upstairs window and front door window of a quarters building.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 18 September 1987, the applicant was furnished a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for being in physical control of a motor vehicle when his blood alcohol content was .31 percent.  The commander recommended that the GOMOR be permanently placed in his Official Military Personnel File.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 6 November 1987, based on the NJP that was imposed against him on 26 August 1987, the GOMOR and two incidents of dishonored checks.

He had NJP imposed against him on 21 December 1987, while at Fort Knox, Kentucky for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for failure to obey a lawful order.  He was also punished for signing an official request (Reinstatement of Post Driving Privileges) indicating that he needed transportation to take his wife and son to the post exchange, commissary and to any medical treatment necessary knowing that his wife and son resided in West Germany.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

On 9 February 1988, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 29 January until 2 February 1988 and for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 1 March 1988, for assaulting another soldier by striking him in the chest with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, for threatening to cut a soldier with a razor blade and for breach of the peace by grabbing a soldier by the arm and using provoking language towards him.

The applicant submitted an undated request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 9 March 1988, his request for discharge was disapproved. 

On 21 March 1988, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for reconsideration of his request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he indicated that alcohol was the source of his problems.

The appropriate authority approved the request for reconsideration for discharge on 29 March 1988.  Accordingly, on 1 April 1988, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 9 years, 11 months and 25 days of total active service.

A review of the records fails to show that the applicant’s misconduct was the result of racism or prejudice exhibited by his First Sergeant.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 3 June 1996, 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.  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 therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not substantiated by the evidence of record.  There is no evidence of racial discrimination or prejudice either before, or incident to, the altercations which gave rise to the applicant's offenses.  Moreover, when the applicant submitted his request for reconsideration for discharge he indicated that alcohol was the source of his problems.  The evidence of record clearly shows that his numerous acts of misconduct were the basis for the charges being preferred against him and in view of his acts of misconduct it does not appear that his discharge under other than honorable conditions is too severe. 

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	AR2000042519	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/11/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1988/04/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.0000	
2.  716	144.7300	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.