MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026067

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he paid into the Montgomery G. I. Bill and he wants to go to school but he needs financial help.  He provides no supporting evidence.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no contention.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 June 1991.

On 19 April 1994, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongful use, wrongful distribution and wrongful possession of marijuana.  He was sentenced to be reprimanded, to be reduced to Private, E-1, and to be confined for 6 months.

On an unknown date, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct.

On 5 May 1994, the applicant was advised by counsel and acknowledged the separation action.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 9 June 1994, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 10 months and 10 days of creditable active service and had 49 days of lost time (confinement). 

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, 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.

On 28 April 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

The 1998 edition of the Department of Veterans Affairs pamphlet, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, states that the Montgomery G. I. Bill (Active Duty) provides a program of education benefits to individuals who enter active duty for the first time after 30 June 1985 and receive an honorable discharge.

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.  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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge given was commensurate with his overall record of service.

3.  The Montgomery G. I. Bill is a Department of Veterans Affairs program and is not under the purview of the Department of Defense.  The applicant should submit a request for exception to policy to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

4.  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

__inw___  __clg___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026067	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991110	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990409	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A66.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.