MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031176

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn 		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he joined the Army at the age of 17 to be a warrior, but he could not cope with garrison duty.  As an uneducated 17-year old without parental intervention, he discovered the ability to purchase and consume alcohol.  He states that he blames himself, not the Army, for his problems.  He adds that he has grown a lot in the past 20 years and if he had the chance to do it all over again, things would certainly be different.

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

He was born on 11 February 1965 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 5 October 1982.  Following completion of all required military training, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Ord, California.

On 18 April 1983, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to obey a lawful order, and being drunk and disorderly.

On 28 December 1983, the applicant was administered NJP for larceny.

On 20 January 1984, he was given NJP for wrongfully possessing marijuana.

On 9 February 1984, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 26 March 1984, the separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 2 April 1984 with 1 year, 5 months and 28 days of creditable active service.

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.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

3.  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

__slp___  ___lem___  __aao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031176	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000608	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840402	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A64.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.