RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 FEBRUARY 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091546

	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. Gale J. Thomas		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 records be corrected by updating his discharge.

2.  The applicant states that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his military records in support of his request, but submits no other evidence which supports his contention that his discharge should be upgraded.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 September 1997, for a period of 3 years.

2.  On 24 October 2001, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order by a commissioned officer by violating restriction, and for contacting his wife when there was a no contact order in force.  His punishment was reduction, forfeiture, extra duty and restriction.

3.  The applicant was arrested by civilian authorities in Fairbanks, Alaska, and charged with domestic assault.  He was sentenced to a mandated surcharge or 
8 hours of community service work.  He was ordered to enroll in and complete the “Alternate to Violence Program”, and to provide proof of completion to the court no later than 1 April 2002.

4.  The applicant received numerous counseling statements for his performance, driving in excess of the posted speed limit, attendance and attitude at a Microsoft class, breaking restriction, and disobeying orders. 

5.  The applicant was notified by his company commander that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  He was recommending that the applicant receive a general under honorable conditions discharge.  

6.  On 21 December 2001, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct.  He waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board, waived appearance before an administrative separation board, requested legal counsel, and indicated he would be providing a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 21 December 2001, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated prior to his expiration of term of service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.

8.  On 28 December 2001, the intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the above cited regulation, and that his service be characterized as general.

9.  On 2 January 2002, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 

10.  On 17 January 2002, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general), under the provisions of the above cited regulation.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 
4 years and 4 months of active service.  

11.  On 28 Mary 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, 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.

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	AR2003091546	
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.