MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           1 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032774

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy 		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr. 		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 the reason and authority for his discharge be changed to medical.  In effect, he is requesting that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), issued as a result of misconduct, be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a nervous breakdown 3 months prior to his separation.  He adds that he has been under psychiatric care ever since.  He provided no evidence in support of his claim.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 9 April 1976.  Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer) and assigned to Germany.

The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on four occasions:  on 2 June 1977, he accepted a company grade NJP for being incapacitated for duty by reason of previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor; on 12 August 1978, he accepted a company grade NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order; on 19 September 1978, he accepted a field grade NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to turn in his sick slip to the orderly room; and on 31 October 1978, he accepted a field grade NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

The applicant received 23 negative counseling statements regarding his attitude, poor duty performance, missing alerts, and poor personal appearance.

On 4 October 1978, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

On 1 November 1978, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civilian or military authorities.

On 1 November 1978, the applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and waived representation by counsel before such a board.  He did submit a statement in his own behalf wherein he requested that the fact he was within 120 of his ETS (expiration term of service) be considered when determining the type of discharge he would receive.

On 2 November 1978, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.  On his Report of Medical History, he noted he was in “good health” and answered "no" to questions pertaining to depression or excessive worry and nervous trouble of any sort.

On 4 December 1978, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 22 December 1978, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade of E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 8 months and 14 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 

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, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, 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 9 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant has not provided any evidence that he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of his discharge.  To the contrary, he acknowledged that he was in "good health" and was not suffering from depression or nervous troubles of any kind.  His mental status examination was unremarkable and he was medically cleared for separation.

3.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service and the reason therefor is appropriate.

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

__dsj___  __kak____  __ewl ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032774	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19781222	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	108.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.