MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           13 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069360

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he failed to conform to the discipline and regulations that was required of him.  The many indiscretions and childish behavior that he displayed were due to his immaturity.  Since leaving the Army, he has become a good, honest and law abiding citizen.

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

The applicant was born on 6 February 1974.  On 12 August 1992, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B10 (Cannon Crewmember).  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 29 August and on 31 August 1992, while assigned to a unit at Fort Sill, Oklahoma the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for failure to follow instructions.

On or about 19 November 1992, the applicant was assigned to a unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 13 January and on 20 January 1993, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, and for being out of uniform.

On 27 January 1993, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to follow instructions and for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty.

Between 23 and 25 February 1993, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, for being out of uniform, for disobeying a lawful order and for lying to a non-commission officer.

On 18 June 1993, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $189.00 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

Between 25 and 26 August 1993, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, for failure to shave and for failing to maintain accountability of TA-50.

Between 8 and 16 September 1993, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, and for being out of uniform.

On 30 September 1993, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order (to get a haircut).  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 27 October 1993, the applicant was barred from reenlisting.  The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s disciplinary record.  

On 1 March 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.

A mental and physical evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.

On 8 March 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 23 March 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a general discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 12 days of creditable active service.

On 30 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his 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 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.

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.  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.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was based on his misconduct.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  
3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s contentions.  However, these factors do not overcome the serious nature of the offenses and his demonstrated disregard for military authority and therefore are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

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

__CLA__  __BJE__  __DPH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069360	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1994/03/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.