MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 January 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049228

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway 		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen 		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 2 July 1997 for a period of 3 years.  While in basic training, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using disrespectful language and action toward two sergeants.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty and restriction.    

While in basic training, the applicant went AWOL on 21 October 1997 and returned to military control on 18 November 1997.

On 25 November 1997 the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial for the aforementioned AWOL period, two specifications of dereliction in the performance of duty and failure to obey regulation.  He was sentenced to
30 days confinement, no smoking and forfeiture of $550 pay for one month.

The applicant received an adverse counseling statement on 9 January 1998 for unsatisfactory performance, lack of motivation, and refusal to train.

On 13 January 1998 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and based his recommendation on the applicant’s summary court-martial offenses and his refusal to train if restarted.  

The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his rights.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was cleared for administrative separation.  He also underwent a medical examination.   

The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation and the issuance of a general discharge. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on
17 March 1998 and directed that the applicant’s characterization of service be classified as entry level separation (uncharacterized).

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized discharge on 16 April 1998 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for 

misconduct.  He had served 7 months and 24 days of total active service with
50 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

On 8 November 2000 the Army Discharge Review Board changed the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.

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, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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

MDM___  CLG_____  ENA____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049228	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20001108	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.