MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062392

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that someone in his unit committed a crime of which he had no knowledge and he and others were confined in the unit for not providing information on this crime.  He also claims that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded to an HD after 1 year.

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

On 9 October 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
11B (Infantryman).  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-2.  

The applicant’s record does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the offenses indicated on the following three occasions:  4 September 1980, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 16 February 1981, for demonstrating contempt towards a 
non-commissioned officer (NCO) and failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 6 July 1981, for demonstrating contempt towards a NCO.

On 4 August 1981, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, for his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The commander cited the applicant’s consistent record of misconduct and lack of promotion potential as his reasons for taking this action.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and waived his right to consult counsel and elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own behalf.

On 10 August 1981, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  His commander stated the basis for this action was the applicant’s consistently poor personal appearance, his failure to obey the simplest of orders, his disrespect towards his chain of command, and his being a detriment to the good order, discipline, and esprit de corps of the unit. 

On 1 September 1981, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate.  Accordingly, on 4 September 1981, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months and 26 days of active military service. 

There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 14-33b, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, for separating members for a pattern of misconduct, including frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separating under this provision.  

Paragraph 3-7 provides that an HD is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

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 accordance with applicable regulations.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he believed his discharge would be upgraded after 1 year.  However, the Army has never had a policy for the automatic upgrade of a service member’s discharge.  The characterization of service at separation is based upon the quality of a soldier’s service, including the reason for separation.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s service record, the Board finds that the type of discharge directed was appropriate considering all the facts and that it accurately reflects the overall character of the applicant’s service.  

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

__INW __   _ _TL __  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062392	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/12/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/09/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Frequent Incidents of a discreditable nature 	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.