MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056671

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  His discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He and his company commander did not get along.  Consequently he was placed on all the extra duty rosters and was not allowed to deploy on field exercises.  Further, he states his commander told him that if he wanted to get out of the Army all he had to do was strike him, so he did.

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

The applicant enlisted on 25 September 1979 for a period of 3 years.  Upon completion of his training he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.

On 2 June 1980 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent from duty for one day, being disrespectful by slamming the door in his superior’s face, and of assault by striking his superior with a stick.  He was sentenced to reduction to the pay grade of E-1, to forfeiture of $299.00 of pay per month for three months (suspended for 90 days), and confinement at hard labor for a period of three months (suspended for 90 days).  The convening authority approved the sentence on 16 June 1980.

On 8 August 1980 he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas and approximately six months later was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent from duty for 16 days.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and to forfeiture of $334.00 of pay per month for one month.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 26 February 1981.

On 24 February 1981 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

The applicant elected to waive his right to counsel and also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, on 6 March 1981 and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 April 1981.  He had served 1 year, 5 months, and 15 days of total active service.

On 14 February 1984 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB denied his request on 29 January 1986.

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, and 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.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__ao____  __wtm___  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056671	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/11/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/03/06	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 14	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.