MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031482

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He submits no evidence or statement to support his request.

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

He enlisted on 21 July 1993 and, after training, was assigned to Hawaii.  Upon completion of his tour in Hawaii, he was reassigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia.

On 2 February 1998, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for larceny.

On 4 August 1998, he was administered NJP for having an open container of alcohol in his motor vehicle.

On 10 August 1998, the applicant was formally counseled for committing assault on a fellow soldier.

On 8 September 1998, 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 acknowledged that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 11 September 1998, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 25 September 1998 with 5 years, 2 months and 5 days of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  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 22 October 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his 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.  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.  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 this 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

__mdm__  __wtm__  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031482	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000627	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980925	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.