MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            15 January 2002                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062858

	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. Lee Cates 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged.  In addition, on 10 September 2001, he submitted a request for reimbursement of the money he put into the GI Bill, approximately $1,200, so that he might attend college.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he feels his discharge should be changed to honorable.  

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

On 24 February 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Army.

During the period 21 November 1995 to 25 August 1996, the applicant was formally counseled for referral to the alcohol and drug program; larceny; disobeying a lawful order; operating a vehicle while drunk; underage drinking; and revocation of privately owned vehicle privileges.

On 22 March 1996, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice for stealing a pre-paid phone card valued at $48.99 from the Army and Air Force Exchange System on 13 January 1996.  His punishment included a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay (suspended), restriction and extra duty.

On 13 July 1996, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana on 20 May 1996.  His punishment included a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 4 September 1996, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared him for separation.

On 13 September 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of the initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, based on his patterns of misconduct (NJP’s and formal counseling statements) and he was advised of his rights.

On 16 September 1996, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, acknowledged notification of his commander’s intent, accepted counsel and elected to not make a statement in his own behalf.

On 24 September 1996, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he receive a general discharge, under honorable conditions.

On 10 October 1996, he was discharged under the above-cited regulation.  His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 7 months and 17 days of creditable service.  It also shows he contributed to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program.

On 31 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  A specific category was patterns of misconduct.  A general discharge was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for patterns of misconduct.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge 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.

Chapter 30, Title 38 of the US Code established eligibility requirement for participation in the Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill).  It provided that individuals who entered an initial period of active duty on or after    1 July 1985 would be automatically enrolled in the program unless they opted to disenroll within a specific time frame established by the individual services.  Once enrolled in the New GI Bill the individual's basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.  An honorable discharge is required for receipt of entitlements, which amounted to $300.00 per month for 36 months, for individuals who completed at least 3 years of active duty.

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 has submitted insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  His discharge was clearly caused by his misconduct.

4.  Based on the applicant’s length of service and characterization of service, he is not entitled to reimbursement of the New GI Bill payments.

5.  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.

6.  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____  __dph____  _hof____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062858	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010115	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.