MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:               17 July 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:       AR2003089845

	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:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge from the Army National Guard (ARNG) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that an automobile accident left him disoriented and disabled.  

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

He served on active duty in the Regular Army for 5 months and 20 days between 20 December 1974 and 9 June 1975.  He served in the ARNG from 
19 December 1979 through 14 January 1981.  

On 9 March 1982, the applicant entered the ARNG and began serving the enlistment under review.  The record shows that he served with Battery D,
4th Battalion, 200th Air Defense Artillery, Clovis, New Mexico, and performed duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist).  It further shows that the highest rank he held was private/E-2, and there are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition documented in the record during this period of service. 

The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file.  However the record does contain a properly constituted separation document (NGB 22).  This document confirms that 
the applicant was discharged from the ARNG under the provisions of paragraph 7-10t, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, by reason of misconduct.  

The medical records available on the applicant do not reveal a disqualifying medical condition that would have rendered him unqualified for continued service at the time of his discharge.  

NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, established standards, policies, and procedures for the assignment of ARNG soldiers.  Chapter 7 provided the policy for the separation and discharge of ARNG soldiers and paragraph 7-10t provided the authority for the State to discharge members for misconduct.  

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 and carefully considered the applicant’s contention that he suffered injuries in automobile accident that impaired his ability to serve.  However, it finds no evidence showing that the applicant suffered from a disqualifying medical condition at the time of his discharge.  Thus, the Board concludes this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 

2.  The evidence of record is void of a discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the applicant’s discharge.  However, the Board notes that there is a properly constituted 
NGB Form 22 on file.  This separation document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected throughout the separation process.  Thus, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.  

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 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

RKS__  __JM___  __JHL    _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089845	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NGB 600-200 C7	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.