RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           5 February 2004
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003087164

	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	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 narrative reason for separation be changed.

2.  The applicant states that his behavior as a soldier was honorable for his first enlistment.  He states that the personal problems he encountered did not escalate until five months into his second enlistment.

3.  The applicant provides a supplemental letter dated 9 March 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 May 1995 for a period of four years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).  He served in the Sinai from 11 December 1995 through 10 December 1996.  He was discharged on 9 March 1999 for immediate reenlistment.

2.  The applicant reenlisted on 10 March 1999 for a period of three years.  

3.  On various occasions between 1 April 1999 and 11 July 1999, the applicant received adverse counseling statements for having a revocation of pass privileges; missing formation; being absent from duty; allegations that he assaulted another soldier on 4 and 5 July 1999; and failure to report to designated area.

4.  On 6 July 1999, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 June 1999 to 14 June 1999.

5.  The applicant's elimination packet was reviewed on 17 August 1999 and found to be legally sufficient.

6.  On 19 August 1999, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14, for pattern of misconduct.  He cited as the basis for his proposed action the applicant's violation of Article 86, failure to be at his appointed place of duty and being AWOL on diverse occasions; and violation of Article 91, disrespect to a noncommissioned officer.  He was advised of his rights and was advised that a general under honorable conditions discharge may be issued under this provision.  

7.  On 23 August 1999, the applicant acknowledged notification of the pending separation action, consulted with legal counsel, waived a hearing by a board of officers, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  
8.  The unit commander recommended on 23 August 1999 that the applicant be eliminated from the service before the expiration of his term of service with a general under honorable conditions discharge and requested that the rehabilitative transfer requirements be waived.  

9.  On 30 August 1999, the separation authority approved discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct and waived further rehabilitative requirements with issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge. 

10.  The applicant was discharged on 8 September 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct.  At the time of his discharge, he completed 5 months and 29 days on his current enlistment and 4 years, 3 months, and 9 days total active military service.  His lost time for the period 1 to 14 June 1999 was omitted from his DD Form 214.

11.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows "MISCONDUCT."  

12.  Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant's DD Form 214 shows "JKA."  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JKA" is "MISCONDUCT" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.

13.  On 23 December 2001, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable and to change the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority.  The ADRB upgraded the applicant's character of service to honorable and voted not to change the narrative reason.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed 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.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  It appears to be in accordance with his record of service during his last enlistment.

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received several adverse counseling statements, one Article 15, and 14 days of lost time.  

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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.

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

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