MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           27 NOVEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058199

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he "suffered at the hands of [his] commander" and was harassed by him.  He states that his roommate placed a package on his bed and he picked it up just as a member of the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) entered the room.  He maintains his commander was prejudiced.  He states that at the end of his time at the retraining brigade he was given the choice of "separating from [his] fiancée or leaving the military" and, "being young," he accepted the discharge to "be relieved from further harassment from this officer."  In support of his request he submits a self-authored statement.

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

He entered active duty on 19 May 1981 at the age of 20, with 12 years of formal education.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Germany as a vehicle mechanic in November 1981.

Shortly after his arrival in Germany, he was promoted to pay grade E-2, and in April 1982 he was promoted to E-3.

On 16 July 1982 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of possession and transfer of hashish.  His sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

He served approximately 42 days of his confinement at Fort Riley and was then assigned to the retraining brigade as a "trainee."  In September 1982, while a member of the retraining brigade, he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for disobeying an order.  A 29 September 1982 "training progress" report, completed by the applicant’s "acting" training commander, noted that the applicant's "performance while going through the training program has been below standards."  The report noted the applicant received only one satisfactory rating during a four week rating period and that while he, "has demonstrated some positive areas he has failed the program by not being able to follow simple orders."

A 7 October 1982 report, completed by a Behavioral Science Specialist, indicated the applicant had been given "ample opportunity to earn a good 

discharge, but this apparently wasn't important enough to him to put forth very much of an effort."  The specialist indicated there was "no evidence of any type of personality disorder that would contribute to his poor performance” and cleared the applicant for any administrative action “deemed appropriate by the command."

On 18 October 1982, the applicant, after consulting with counsel, acknowledged receipt of a proposed administrative separation action and waived his attendant rights, including the right to submit statements in his own behalf.

The unit commander's recommendation was approved and on 29 October 1982 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

In August 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

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, and convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Generally a discharge under other than honorable conditions is appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  

2.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not submitted any, which demonstrates that he was the victim of prejudice.  In fact, the Board notes that two different commanders, one from his unit at the time of his court-martial and a second while at the retraining brigade, were involved in his separation action.

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 that 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

__AAO__  __LE____  __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058199	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011127	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.