MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:             11 October 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2001056802

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez 		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 narrative reason for discharge on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, be changed from “misconduct” to “unable to adapt.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That he thinks he was given the wrong reason for discharge.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1999 for a period of 3 years.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63W, Wheel Vehicle Repairer, and was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for his first permanent duty assignment.

On 17 December 1999, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty and one specification of willfully and unlawfully altering a public record, a DD Form 689, Individual Sick Slip.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of $223.00 pay and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 17 February 2000, the applicant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol and speeding (42 miles per hour in a 25-mile per hour zone).

On 6 March 2000, the applicant accepted an NJP for knowingly possessing and consuming an alcoholic beverage while under the age of 21 years.  The applicant’s punishment for this NJP is not in the available records.

On 24 April 2000, the applicant was medically evaluated and cleared for separation.

On 25 April 2000, the applicant accepted an NJP for three specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  The applicant’s punishment for this NJP is not in the available records.

On 26 April 2000, the applicant was given a mental status evaluation and found to be mentally competent and cleared for separation.

The applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding his duty performance and misconduct.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to any sort of rehabilitation.

On 2 June 2000, the applicant was notified that his company commander was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.

On 6 June 2000, after being advised by counsel of the contemplated separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, the applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf and waived a hearing before a board of officers contingent upon his receiving a general discharge.

On 14 June 2000, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a general discharge.  Accordingly, on 26 June 2000, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 5 months, and 6 days of creditable military service.

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, 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.

The record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to change his reason for discharge on 20 July 2001.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service and the narrative reason for separation appropriately reflects why the applicant was separated.

3.  The applicant's belief that the wrong reason for discharge was applied to his DD Form 214 is without merit.  The applicant acknowledged his commander's decision to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct.  He consulted with legal counsel who explained the separation action to him in detail.  There is no way he could have been led to believe that he was being separated by reason of "unable to adapt."

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

__JHL  __  __MDM _  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056802	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011011	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20000626	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Pattern of Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9455	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.