MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   .  

	BOARD DATE:           19 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074303

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Board Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Board 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and made mistakes.  He adds that he was under a lot of stress due to a skin disease (Psoriasis), which caused him to have pain and itching.  He states that he was depressed and had some psychological problems due to the stress.  In support of his claim he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), and a unidentified medical summary. 

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

On 25 October 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his military training in military occupational specialty (MOS)11B00 (Infantryman). On 7 February 1979, he was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for duty.

On 12 October 1979, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 18 September 1979.  His sentence included reduction to the pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of $279.00 pay and confinement to hard labor for 30 days, in US Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas.

On 20 November 1979, he received his first nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to obey a lawful order on 
17 November 1979.  His punishments included restriction and extra duty for 
7 days.  

On 5 December 1979, he received his second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order on 30 November 1979.  His punishment included forfeiture of $100.00 pay and restriction for 20 days.

On the same day the applicant’s command notified him of its intent to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  He consulted with counsel, acknowledged receipt of the notice of the proposed separation action, and waived his rights to a hearing.  He indicated he understood that he could receive a UOTHC discharge and the impact of such a characterization on his military and veterans benefits.  He chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf and was medically cleared for separation after a physical examination.

On 13 December 1979, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge certificate. 

On 14 December 1979, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  He had 1 year and 
12 days of creditable service and 38 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.  

On 20 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time of the applicants service, established policy and prescribed the procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and extensive periods of AWOL.  At the time of the separation action other categories of misconduct included frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and failure to pay just debts.  Action was to be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or unlikely to succeed.  A UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate, but a general or an honorable discharge could be awarded.

Army Regulation 635-200 also 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  Based on the evidence, which shows that 
he did not appeal the two NJPs, the summary court-martial and in the absence of any medical evidence which shows he had an unfitting condition that rendered him unfit to remain on active duty the discharge was proper.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant's contention of youthful immaturity is noted; however, he had demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completion of training and almost 2 years of service without an offense of record.

3.  The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation.  He has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.

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 the 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

__JNS __  ____SVW  ___MHM_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029405	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002.11.19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	MISCONDUC-UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1979 12 14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200 CH14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.50	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A144.0133	
2.	A71.00	
3.	A126.00	
4.		
5.		
6.		

W