MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058489

	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. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he served over 180 consecutive days of active service and is being denied Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.

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

He enlisted on 18 October 1990 for a period of 4 years and training as an equipment records and parts specialist.  He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 26 April 1991.

On 30 December 1991 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to secure his rifle.  His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.

On 26 March 1992. he was convicted by a summary court-martial of pushing and kicking a commissioned officer.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 20 April 1992, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense.  After being advised of his rights and consulting with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 21 April 1992 and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 May 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense.  He had served 1 year, 6 months and 21 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 April 2001.  The ADRB found that the applicant had been properly discharged and that his service was properly characterized.  The ADRB voted unanimously to deny his request.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct.  It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  Although a general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was 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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded so that he may obtain VA benefits has been noted by the Board.  While the Board does not have any jurisdiction over benefits administered by the VA, it does not find that his contention or his undistinguished record of service is sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief by upgrading his discharge.

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

__gw____  ___inw __  ___fe ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058489	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/05/08	
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.