MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049557

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in 1988 for an upgrade of his discharge was not properly considered or taken seriously.  He also states that he was also suffering from disabilities involving hearing loss and blurred vision.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 1977 for a period of 4 years, assignment as a medical specialist and assignment to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments. 

On 11 January 1979, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 December 1978 to 1 January 1979.  His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and a forfeiture of pay.

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 January 1981.

On 6 January 1983, NJP was imposed against him for damaging automobile windows of a vehicle belonging to another soldier.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 28 August 1985, while stationed in Germany for the second time, NJP was imposed against the applicant for assaulting his wife and resisting apprehension. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 60 days) and extra duty.

He again had NJP imposed against him on 20 March 1986 for assaulting a private and disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 and a forfeiture of pay (suspended).

On 3 April 1986, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment.  She cited as the basis for her recommendation, the applicant’s disciplinary history, his repeated offenses of writing dishonored checks, his failure to pay his debts as evidenced by repeated notices of indebtedness from creditors, and his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment.

On 13 May 1986, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  She cited the same reasons as she cited in the bar to reenlistment as the basis for her action.  After consulting with counsel the applicant elected to waive his rights to have his case considered by an administrative separation board.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant’s commander initiated action on 16 May 1986 to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  The commander also indicated that the applicant, by his own admission, expressed a desire to terminate his military career.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 June 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He had served 8 years, 11 months and 5 days of total active service.

On 5 June 1987 he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.  He cited the lack of understanding of his problems and even less support from the chain of command as the basis for his problems.  He contended that his 9 years of faithful service and his sacrifices for his country warranted an honorable discharge.  He was granted a personal appearance before that board with the assistance of counsel.  However, after examining the evidence of record and hearing testimony from the applicant and his counsel, the ADRB unanimously voted to deny his request.

A review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) shows that the applicant began experiencing financial and marital difficulties as early as 1978.  His evaluation reports establish a pattern of personal problems, indebtedness, and substandard performance of duty that were identified at all of his duty assignments at one time or another. 

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, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. It provides that action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  While an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

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 or unjust.  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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf during the administrative separation process and elected not to do so.  Additionally, he was granted a personal appearance before the ADRB whereby he and his counsel had the opportunity to surface any mitigating circumstances in his case.  

5.  The Board finds that the applicant’s pattern of misconduct that began shortly after his enlistment and continued until his separation does not warrant a fully honorable discharge when compared to his overall undistinguished record of service.

6.  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

___jhl___  __gp____  __dh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049557	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/06/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  626	144.6000/A60.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.