MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 
	BOARD DATE:           11 January 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046348

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, 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 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he completed over 3 years of his 4-year enlistment. He has not been allowed to use the G. I. Bill and he anticipates enrolling at a major university.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 June 1986 for 4 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91H (Orthopedic Specialist).

On 11 May 1988, the applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) due to an alcohol-related injury.

In January 1989, the applicant was formally counseled for being late for duty on four separate occasions between September 1988 and January 1989.  In March 1989, he was formally counseled for being late for duty for the fifth time in five months.

On 8 March 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

On 29 March 1989, a mental status evaluation was completed on the applicant at the request of his command.  It was determined that the potential for his rehabilitation was poor due to past behavior and present attitude toward making necessary changes.

On 27 June 1989, the applicant was re-referred to ADAPCP following a recent arrest for driving while intoxicated.  

On 28 June 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for dereliction in the performance of his duties by being intoxicated by alcohol while on on-call duty.

On 7 July 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for dereliction in the performance of his duties by being intoxicated by alcohol while on on-call duty.

On 7 July 1989, the applicant’s commander requested that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for a pattern of misconduct.

On 10 July 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for larceny (wrongfully obtaining a Dominos pizza and heat bag).

On 17 July 1989, a mental status evaluation was completed on the applicant.  He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, to be mentally responsible, and to be psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deem appropriate by the command.

The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  Although he requested consideration of his case by a board of officers and appearance before such a board, he was not eligible for board consideration since he had less than 6 years of service.  He elected to submit a statement on his behalf.  He stated that he realized that he had an alcohol problem when he was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated and that it was destroying his military career and personal life.  He knew that he could be very productive for the Army and could provide the excellent care he was trained to provide.  He wanted to do what he could to preserve his military career. 

On 8 August 1989, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 23 August 1989, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 28 days of creditable active service and had no 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.  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 and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  

Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there have been 

infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ Article 15.  An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.  It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

On 10 November 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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.  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 tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant’s misconduct began well before he attained three years of active service.  Considering his four Article 15s and his other numerous infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general was and still is appropriate.

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

__emw___  __amc___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046348	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010111	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890823	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A64.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.