MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 January 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047985

	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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That after all these years he would like an upgraded discharge so he can get some VA benefits.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 September 1978.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  

On 21 September 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for sleeping at his post as a sentinel.

On 4 January 1980, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of disobeying a commissioned officer, disobeying a noncommissioned officer, and of dereliction of duty (two specifications).  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, and to forfeit $296.00 pay for one month.  After confinement, he was assigned to the U. S. Army Retraining Brigade (USARB), Fort Riley, KS.

While in the USARB, the applicant received numerous negative Trainee Observation Reports or other writeups for infractions such as bunk not being made, failure to follow instructions, hiding a laundry bag with clothing in it in an empty wall locker, being absent from fire drill and accountability formation, being absent from fireguard briefing, improperly using equipment, and not complying with pass policies.

On 10 March 1980, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 11 March 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a superior noncommissioned officer, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, for disobeying a lawful order, and for failing to obey an order not to leave the unit area without signing out.

On 12 March 1980, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capability to understand and participate in proceedings. 

On 18 March 1980, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – frequent acts of a discreditable nature.
On 28 March 1980, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, waived consulting counsel, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 31 March 1980, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 2 April 1980, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had completed 1 year,    5 months, and 13 days of creditable active service and had 24 days of 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.

On 23 August 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) disapproved 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 his two Article 15s, his summary court-martial, and his other numerous, though minor, infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions 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

__emw___  __amc___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047985	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010111	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800402	
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.