MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             7 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999033320

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant does not provide any statement to the Board.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1979 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of heavy anti-armor weapons crewman.

On 24 June 1980 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for being AWOL.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days , a forfeiture of $299.00 a month for one month, and a reduction from pay grade E-2 to E-1.

On 7 August 1980 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being incapacitated to perform his duties due to indulgence in intoxicating liquor.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $50.00 a month for one month, and seven days restriction and extra duty.

On 9 September 1980 the applicant again accepted NJP for being AWOL from 
2 to 4 September 1980.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $65.00 a month for one month, and ten days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was given a physical examination and a mental status evaluation, both of which found that he was medically qualified for retention.  His commander then notified him of his intent to recommend his separation due to a misconduct and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation.  He waived all of his rights.

On 11 September 1980 the applicant’s commander recommended that he be discharged for misconduct, frequent acts of a discreditable nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14.

The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was accepted and, on 26 September 1980, he was discharged for misconduct and issued an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.

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.  Paragraph 1-18 of this regulation specifies that soldiers being considered for separation under the provisions of chapters 13, 14 and 15 are entitled to have a board of officers consider their cases unless that right is waived.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant had a documented pattern of misconduct which clearly supports his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence, argument or reason why the Board should recommend upgrading his properly issued discharge.

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

__mkp___  ___esc__  ___jps___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033320	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
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.	A67.50	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.