MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046074

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith 		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 (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no contentions, but he wants to join the National Guard and receive his "GI Bill" education benefits.

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

That on 30 December 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist). 

The applicant's records contain no nonjudicial punishments.  However, his records do contain numerous counseling statements for offenses such as child abuse; for spousal abuse; for missing formation; for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; for indebtedness; for suspension of check cashing privileges; and for operating an unregistered privately owned vehicle.

Specific incidents included:  1)  In December 1988, he was identified as the secondary offender in a child abuse case, but no disciplinary action was taken in the case;  2)  On 2 February 1989, the applicant was released from civilian confinement on a personal bond on a civilian criminal charge for theft with a worthless check.  The applicant appears to have made restitution for the worthless check and attended the Fort Hood Check Book Accounting Class, therefore, no further action was taken against him;  3) In April 1989, he was identified as the "maltreator" in a validated case of spousal abuse.  Both the applicant and his spouse completed a Domestic Conflict Containment Program in May 1989;  4) and 5)  In October 1989 and February 1990, there were two more documented spousal abuse incidents.  The applicant's spouse was approximately 3 months pregnant during the 1990 incident.

The applicant's records also contain statements from both "Families in Crisis, Inc" program and the Family Advocacy Case Management Team at Fort Hood, Texas.  The statements indicate that the applicant and his spouse had a long history of spousal abuse.  The applicant's spouse claimed that she was both physically and emotionally abused, she was slapped, kicked, choked, and shoved/thrown.  Her injuries included "scratches and bruises."

Also during this period, a local bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant on 21 November l989 for several instances of writing worthless checks and for spousal and child abuse.  He did not appeal or rebut the bar to reenlistment.

On 9 January 1990, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and a physical examination.  He was found to be both mentally and physically qualified for separation.

On 23 March 1990, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct with a GD.  The commander cited the child abuse incident and the three validated cases of spousal abuse as the bases for the recommendation.

On 28 March 1990, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was  advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He was further advised of the rights available to him. .  He was not entitled to consideration or personal appearance by a board of officers.  The available records do not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.

On 16 April 1990, the intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated with a GD. 

On 19 April 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD.  

On 10 May 1990, the applicant was separated with a GD, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 
635-200.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 11 days of creditable military service.

On 8 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge. 

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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  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 considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant's apparent desire to serve in the National Guard and to receive veteran's benefits is understood by the Board.  However, these matters do not overcome his substandard record of service while on active duty nor do they justify a change in the discharge action.

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____  __jpi____  __rks____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046074	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	900510	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.