MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            11 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074156

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded so that he can utilize his G.I. Bill benefits.

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

He enlisted in Syracuse, New York, on 26 November 1989, for a period of 4 years, training as an infantryman, assignment to the 10th Mountain Division and a cash enlistment bonus.  He completed his training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was transferred to Fort Drum, New York, on 12 March 1990.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 February 1992.

On 4 June 1993, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on two occasions, once for drunk driving and once for being absent without leave and that he had multiple incidents of indebtedness.  He further indicated that the applicant had been caught driving drunk twice and had been involved in numerous less serious incidents since he had arrived in the unit.  The applicant declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on the same day.

On 4 August 1993, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He recommended that the applicant be separated under honorable conditions.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, the statement is not present in the available records.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 30 August 1993 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 9 September 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He had served 3 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service.

On 12 March 2002, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He contended at that time that his discharge was inequitable because he was going through depression, had family problems and he had a serious drinking problem.  He further stated that he should have received some help, instead of being discharged and contends that he should have received an honorable discharge because he only had a short amount of time remaining on his contract. 

After reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB opined that notwithstanding the applicant’s contention of being inequitably discharged, he had numerous counseling statements in his records for failure to go to his place of duty, missing formations, assault, indebtedness, and driving under the influence.  These counseling statements, coupled with his disciplinary record and bar to reenlistment, clearly indicate that his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty.  The ADRB denied his request for an upgrade on 5 June 2002. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  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’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. 

4.  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

__jm ____  ___tsk __  __hbo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074156	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993/09/09	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  626	144.6000/A60.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.