MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            26 June 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003086242

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is requesting a pardon and leniency for the GD he received some 14 years ago.  He claims that since his reentry in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in 1997, he has served with the 190th Military Police Company, and has applied himself to a high military standard of excellence.  He states that this has led him to join his fellow soldiers in the upper echelons of rank.  

The applicant further states that during his ARNG service, he has participated 
in Operation Noble Eagle and performed active duty military police duties at
Fort McPherson and Fort Gillem, Georgia.  He states that in his civilian endeavors, he has pursued a career in law enforcement, but as a result of the GD his civilian career is at a stand still.  He further states that if the Board upgrades his discharge, it will allow him to pursue his goal of civil service employment.  In support of his application, he provides letters of support from members of his ARNG unit, which were originally provided to the Atlanta Police Department on his behalf.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002071267) on 2 July 2002.

The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army for 1 year and 8 days, from 5 September 1989 through 12 September 1990.  

The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his receiving a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for his involvement in a verbal and physical altercation with another soldier.  It also includes his accepting nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for unlawfully striking a private first class.  

Based on the applicant’s disciplinary record and poor duty performance, his unit commander recommended his discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD.  On 12 September 1990, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  

On 2 July 2002, after considering the applicant’s claim that his discharge was inhibiting his civilian law enforcement career, the Board found no error or injustice related to the applicant’s discharge, and it concluded that it accurately reflected the overall quality of the applicant’s service.   

The applicant provides letters prepared by his ARNG unit commander, first sergeant, platoon sergeant, and squad leader, that were provided to the Atlanta Police Department on his behalf on 8 December 2002.  These letters all attest to his outstanding performance of duty in the ARNG.  

On 31 May 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) changed the reason for the applicant’s discharge from “Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense” to “Misconduct” based on current standards.  However, it concluded that the applicant’s characterization of service was proper and equitable, and it voted not to upgrade his GD.   

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, and convictions 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.  Although an HD or GD may be authorized, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded in order to enhance his civilian career opportunities and it carefully considered the letters of support he provided from members of his ARNG unit, which attest to his outstanding performance in the ARNG.  However, it finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  In the opinion of the Board, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service.  It also notes that he received a GD as opposed to the UOTHC that is normally considered appropriate for members separating under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.

4.  The Board finally concludes that the overall merits of this case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__LF__  _WTM__  __LE_     DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086242	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AR2002071267	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1990/09/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct 	
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.