MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 July 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053696

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lestor Echols		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes he should have received an honorable discharge.  

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

On 2 May 1975, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana and upon completion was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

The applicant’s service record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does contain a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on three separate occasions.  

On 15 July 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully possessing marijuana and his punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $172.00 per month for 2 months and 30 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 7 May 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for incapacitating himself for the proper performance of his duty due to a previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $57.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty. 

On 20 May 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for two specifications of disobeying the lawful orders of superior noncommissioned officers.  His punishment for these offences included a forfeiture of $93.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

A complete separation packet containing all the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing is not on file in the record.  However, there is a form letter on file that was prepared by the Chief, Civil Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, 21st Support Command, on 1 November 1976, which confirms the applicant’s separation packet was legally sufficient and that there was no legal objection to his discharge. 

Also on file is the endorsement of the separation authority, dated 8 November 1976, which approved the applicant’s separation, under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a (1), Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct and directs that he receive an undesirable discharge.  

A separation document (DD Form 214) on file, issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that he was undesirably discharged on 22 November 1976, after having completed a total of 1 year, 
6 months, and 21 days of active military service.

There is no evidence of record to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within their 15 year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 established the policy and prescribed the procedure for separating members for misconduct.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate and at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD.

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 notes the applicant’s contention that he believes he should have received an honorable discharge but finds no evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The record does not include a full separation packet containing all the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing.  However, it does include properly constituted DD Form 214, authenticated by the applicant with his signature, which contains the authority, characterization, and reason for his discharge.  Therefore, lacking any conflicting independent evidence, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process. 

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and it concludes that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.  

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__  __ LE  __  __GJW__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053696	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/07/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/11/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.