MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 October 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047603

	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. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		Member	
	Mr. John E. Denning		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That because of his disease, his addiction, his Army years were spent feeding his addiction.  Now he is clean and sober and he wishes to use his G. I. Bill to attend school.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 March 1987.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).

On 24 April 1988, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for public drunkenness.  

On 5 December 1988, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of 7 days’ pay, and extra duty and restriction for 7 days.

On 18 January 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of cocaine.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $349.00 pay for 2 months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days.

On 23 February 1989, the applicant received a mental status evaluation.  The applicant was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.  He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command.

On 15 March 1989, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct.  He cited the applicant’s wrongful use of cocaine.

On 15 March 1989, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 20 March 1989, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation and directed he be separated with a general discharge.

On 31 March 1989, the applicant was discharged, with a general under honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation         635-200, chapter 14, misconduct.  He had completed 2 years and 6 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.

On 29 September 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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.  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.  Considering the offense for which the applicant was separated and considering his entire record of service, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.

3.  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

__jdm___  __cjs___  __jed___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047603	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001012	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800331	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.