MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:     

		BOARD DATE:          11 September 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003086191

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser       		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  His ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  He is very remorseful and knows that his conduct destroyed his military career as well as his marriage.  However, since his discharge, he has been a good citizen and has served his community “in the most professional aspect.”  He asks that his earlier periods of honorable active service and his post-service conduct be taken into consideration by the Board as it reviews his request.

In support of his application, he submits letters attesting to his post-service demeanor, conduct, sense of civic responsibility, work ethic, spirituality, selfless service, integrity and character.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 July 1973.  While he was in initial entry training (IET), he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, on 8 November 1973 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL).  On 18 March 1974 he again accepted NJP, this time for leaving his guard post without authority.  He completed his IET and was awarded the military occupational specialty of armorer/unit supply specialist.  He was subsequently promoted to pay grade E-3.  

He immediately reenlisted on 2 July 1975 and was promoted to pay grade E-4.  On 12 August 1976 he again accepted NJP, this time for violating a lawful regulation by driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle.  On 23 September 1977 he again accepted NJP, this time for signing an official record with intent to deceive.  

He immediately reenlisted on 3 April 1978 and served continuously from that date.  On 11 March 1986, the applicant, then in pay grade E-6, accepted NJP once again for losing $2,163.85 of military property through neglect, and for wrongfully soliciting an individual to falsify official military documents.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-5 (suspended) and a forfeiture of $500.00.  On 13 August 1986, the applicant’s battalion commander vacated the suspension of his reduction to pay grade E-5 because the applicant mistreated a female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks.

On 18 August 1986, the applicant was offered NJP for mistreating a female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks.  The applicant declined the NJP and demanded trial by court-martial.

On 19 August 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for mistreating a female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks; for mistreating a different female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks; and for mistreating a third female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks.

On 17 September 1986, additional court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for mistreating a female private subject to his orders by putting his arms around her and attempting to kiss her; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by putting his hand on her knee and attempting to kiss her; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by rubbing her knee; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by unlawfully kissing her; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by unlawfully kissing her; and for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by unlawfully kissing her.

The applicant’s discharge packet is not contained in his records.  However, he evidently requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service, and that request was accepted.

On 29 October 1986, the applicant was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  He was 33 years old at that time and had a total of over 13 years of active service.

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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s offenses are particularly serious since he used his position of authority to mistreat private soldiers subject to his orders.  In a military environment, this type of behavior cannot be tolerated.

2.  The applicant did not commit one act of misconduct.  He committed nine acts of misconduct.  This fact must be carefully considered by the Board.
3.  The applicant’s contention that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity is not accepted by the Board.  The applicant was 33 years old at that time of his discharge and had a total of over 13 years of active service.

4.  As for the applicant’s earlier periods of active service, he accepted NJP twice during each enlistment.  While this misconduct was not sufficient to warrant characterizing his service as less than honorable, it did tarnish his service.

5.  The applicant’s post service conduct has been carefully considered by the Board.  In this regard, the applicant has not stated that he is doing more than what would be expected of any citizen of this nation and any member of a community.  Such conduct, while commendable, certainly isn’t sufficient to outweigh the seriousness and multiplicity of the misconduct which led to the applicant’s discharge UOTHC.

6.  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

___cjp___  ____sk __  ___jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086191	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030911	
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.	A71.00	
2.	A92.19	
3.	A92.21	
4.		
5.		
6.