MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            9 April 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066881

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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. 

APPLICANT STATES: The applicant does not provide a statement

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

During the period 30 December 1998 through 2 February 1999, he was in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.

On 3 February 1999, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He did not complete either Basic Combat or Advanced Individual Training.

During the periods 21 June through 15 July, 7 through 13 October, and             24 October through 15 November 1999, he was absent without leave (AWOL).

On 13 October 1999, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL for the period 7 through           13 October 1999.  The punishment imposed is not a matter of record.

On 22 December 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of the initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for serious misconduct and he was advised of his rights.  The applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification and requested consulting counsel.  He waived personal appearance and consideration by an administrative separation board.

During the period 23 December 1999 through 27 June 2001 (553 days), he was on excess leave.

On 14 June 2001, the appropriate separation authority directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that he be issued an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

On 27 June 2001, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with an UOTHC discharge by reason of misconduct.  His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 3 months and 2 days of creditable service, 553 days of excess leave and 52 days of lost time.

On 5 December 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

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, convictions 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.

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.

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 is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to 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.  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

_rvo___  _dph____  _rjw___        DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066881	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020409	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.