MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 March 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000049414

	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	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That even though it has been several years since his separation from the Army the pain has not ceased.  He should have tried to be more understanding and tolerant of others, even if he found many facets of military life to be disagreeable.  He should have increased his effort to be more patient with those in charge with whom he didn’t particularly get along.  He offered that the decision to discharge him rather that transfer him may have been just a little rash.  Since having received the discharge he has been unable to attend schools and has found it difficult to get a decent job.  He is very tired of being an outcast and asks for clemency.  The discharge is a very heavy weight to carry every day. He has learned from it and does not wish to carry this very heavy load anymore.  He asks that a good soldier who has made mistakes be given a big break.

In support of his request he submits a copy of a letter of recommendation written to support his 1996 application for officer candidate school.

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

A separation document indicates that the applicant, then a member of the Army National Guard, completed 10 weeks of active duty on 24 May 1994.  His character of service was honorable and he had achieved the rank of private first class.

He enlisted on 4 January 1996, received training as a personnel sergeant and served at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He received a general discharge under honorable conditions for patterns of misconduct on 17 July 1997.

On 27 January 1997 the applicant was transferred to a new duty section and given an initial counseling.  The counselor welcomed the applicant to the section and reminded him he would be starting off with a clean slate.

On 21 February 1997 several members of applicant’s chain-of-command formally counseled him for missing a physical training session and lying about his whereabouts.  The applicant concurred with the counseling.

On 24 March 1997 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for several charges including drunk and disorderly.

On 28 March 1997 he accepted NJP for wrongfully reporting for duty with a blood alcohol level in excess of .05. 

On 30 June 1997 the applicant’s commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service based on a pattern of misconduct.  The specific reasons for the commander’s actions included two NJP’s for abuse of alcohol.

The applicant was advised of his rights.  He consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and chose not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.

On 30 June 1997 the appropriate commander waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be separated with a general discharge.  Accordingly, on 17 July 1997 he was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) chapter 14, for misconduct.  He had completed 1 year, 6 months and 14 days of active service and also had 4 months and 14 days prior active service.

On 22 June 1999 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

AR 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.

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 Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service, the infractions of discipline and the length of time since his separation, and considered whether clemency was appropriate.  The applicant submitted no evidence of post service achievements or actions taken to overcome his substance abuse.  Nor, has he submitted any evidence of how the discharge prevents him from attending schools.

2.  The Board noted his contentions that he was an otherwise good soldier; however, those contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or in the available record.  It appears therefore, that the character of the discharge was commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service and that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable at the time.

3.  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.

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

__jhk ___  ___clg __  ___rtd____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049414	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.60		
2.   		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.