MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            24 January 2002  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061559

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he never received any punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), received three awards of the Good Conduct Medal, consistently rated at the top of his career field, and served honorably.

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

At the time of the incident that led to his separation, the applicant was serving on active duty as recruiter in the pay grade of E-6.  On 12 March 1993, an investigation was completed concerning allegations that the applicant, a married man, had an unauthorized relationship with a female member of the Air Force Delayed Entry Program (DEP) and violated State laws by purchasing and consuming alcoholic beverages with said female who was under the legal drinking age.

The investigation concluded that the applicant had knowingly initiated and entered into an unauthorized, romantic relationship with a female member of the Air Force DEP, purchased and consumed alcoholic beverages with said female who was under the legal drinking age, misused a government vehicle by using it to visit said female and using it to engage in sexual intercourse with said female, and disobeyed instructions from his station commander to stay away from said female.  The investigating officer recommended that the applicant be relieved from recruiting duty, receive a General Officer Letter of Reprimand, and be reassigned as a track vehicle mechanic.

On 15 April 1993, his command recommended suspension of his security clearance based on the findings of the investigation and the recommendation that the applicant have charges preferred for sentence by a special court-martial. There is no evidence of record that court-martial charges were ever preferred.

On 3 May 1993, the battalion commander recommended the applicant be separated for the misconduct cited in the report of investigation.  On 6 May 1993, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation for separation for misconduct.  The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers based on his receiving a general discharge and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.

In his statement, the applicant requested to remain on active duty.  He cited his past record of achievements, awards, and decorations.  He apologized for the incident of misconduct and took responsibility for his actions.  He requested the commander give him a second chance or grant him an honorable discharge.

On 30 July 1993, the separation authority, a major general, directed that the applicant be separated with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Effective 20 August 1993, the applicant was separated in the pay grade of E-6 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct.  He had 9 years, 4 months, 17 days creditable service.

On 22 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his general discharge.  The ADRB determined that the nature of the applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable 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, conviction 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.

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.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior honorable service; however, the seriousness of the misconduct, which could have led to trial by court-martial and a punitive discharge, negates his contention that he earned and deserved an honorable discharge.

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 this 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

_gdp____  _wtm____  _rtd____   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061559	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930820	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, PARA 14-12c	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.