MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069989

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He also requests that additional training be included on his Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have been furnished an honorable discharge because he chose not to reenlist in the Army and requested to be discharged.  He states that although he admits to receiving nonjudicial punishment (NJP) several times, there is insufficient disciplinary action to warrant a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He also states that he had additional training that is not included on his DD Form 214.

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

On 8 November 1977, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a cannon crewman.  A review of the records fails to show that the applicant completed any training other than the training that was necessary to be awarded a cannon crewman military occupational specialty.

His awards include the Expert Qualification Badge (Rifle M-16).

On 22 June 1978, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 28 February 1979, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

He had NJP imposed against him again on 23 April 1979 for willfully disobeying a lawful order and for being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 14 November 1979, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 4 February 1980, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 5 June 1980.  His commanding officer’s decision to bar him from reenlistment was based on the applicant being consistently late for formation and his total disregard for authority, which was evident, by his contemptuous attitude towards noncommissioned officers.  His commanding officer also indicated that he was belligerent, lazy and lack of motivation as a basis for the bar to reenlistment.

On 17 June 1980, NJP was imposed against the applicant for maliciously attempting to obstruct a military police officer in the execution of his duties.  His punishment consisted of correctional custody for 30 days, a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 26 January 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 applicant had NJP imposed against him on six separate occasions and he was barred from reenlistment as a result of his numerous acts of indiscipline.  It appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service, which was not honorable.

4.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence of record that shows that he completed any training other than his military occupational specialty training.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 appears to be correct as currently reflected.

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

__hof ___  ___gw___  __jlp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069989	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/01/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.