MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             26 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2002067166

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 his characterization of service was fully honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES: That he wants his discharge status upgraded to an honorable discharge so that he may go to college.

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

During the period 20 August to 29 November 1992, he was a member of the Idaho Army National Guard (IDARNG).

During the period 30 November 1992 to 25 June 1993, he was on active duty for training, as a member of the IDARNG.

During the period 26 June 1993 to 25 April 1994, he was in the IDARNG.

On 26 April 1994, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13M (Master Locating Radar System Crewmember).  He was advanced to pay grade E-4.

On 18 April 1996, he was issued nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for adultery between 31 October and                19 November 1995.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $260 pay per month for 2 months, which was suspended until         22 October 1996, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days.  On 28 May 1996, the suspension of pay was vacated.

On 29 May 1996, a mental status evaluation cleared him for separation.

On 10 June 1996, he was issued NJP for his wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitating him for proper performance of his duties on 3 June 1996.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $437 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days.

On 14 June 1996, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct.  The commander also indicated that between January and May 1996, the applicant was formally counseled by members of his chain of command on 8 occasions for his failure to get a haircut and a driving license, his performance, missing formations, indebtedness and finally, his separation.  He was advised of his rights.

On 14 June 1996, he acknowledged that he had been advised of his commander’s action and of his rights.  
On 18 June 1996, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge under honorable conditions with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

On 24 June 1996, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the above-cited regulation with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 1 month and 29 days of creditable service.

On 21 December 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed his request for upgrade and found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request.

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 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.  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

_djs___  _gdp_____  _dsj____   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067166	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020326	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.