RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 FEBRUARY 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091984

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge under honorable conditions (general) be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) informed him that he could not receive any benefits unless his discharge was upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the VA letter and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 29 July 1998, completed training and in December 1998 was assigned to Fort Wainwright, Alaska.  

2.  On 11 May 1999 the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement from 1 March through 13 March 1999.

3.  On 10 September 1999 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for disobeying a lawful order.

4.  On 13 November 1999 the applicant was informed that his driving privileges at Fort Wainwright, Richardson, and Greely, Alaska, were suspended for five years pending resolution of a drunken driving incident and driving while his installation driving privileges were suspended.

5.  On 10 December 1999 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order, that is driving on post on 13 November 1999, having been directed not to do so.

6.  The applicant's commanding officer informed the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, stating that he violated a general order on two occasions, was arrested by the Fairbanks Police Department for driving under the influence, and failed to be at his appointed place of duty on several occasions.  He informed the applicant that he was recommending that he receive a general under honorable conditions characterization of service.

7.  On 23 December 1999 the applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effect, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood that if he received a discharge which was less than honorable, he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board and this Board for upgrading; however, that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

8.  The applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged.  With his recommendation he indicated that he had included a record of counseling, and reports of medical examination and mental status evaluation.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 12 January 2000.

10.  On 30 October 2002 the VA informed the applicant that he was ineligible for education benefits because of the nature of his discharge, "general under honorable conditions."  The VA informed him that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for relief. 

11.  On 21 May 2003, in an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge, stating that the board did not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining access to veteran's benefits.

12.  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, conviction 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations.  The applicant's discharge was warranted in view his acts of misconduct.  The actions of the Army in this case were appropriate.  The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.  Relief is not warranted.    

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RJW __  __MHM _  __RLD __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		___Raymond J. Wagner_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091984	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040219	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.