MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033352

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He further requests that his Reason and Authority for Discharge be changed to reflect that he was discharged for the Convenience of the Government, that his reentry (RE) code by changed from RE-4 to RE-1 and that the separation program designator (SPD) be changed accordingly.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his ability to serve was impaired by his marital and personal problems and his command abused its authority when they decided to discharge him and give him a bad discharge.  He states that his conduct and efficiency ratings were pretty good, that his record of promotions shows that he was generally a good service member, that he had other acts of merit, and that he had a prior honorable discharge.  He further states that his record of nonjudicial punishment and his record of AWOL indicate only isolated minor offenses and that he paid back his AWOL time when he was confined in the stockade.  He concludes by stating that he did not understand the consequences of an other than honorable discharge and that he believed everything would be alright because he was not getting a dishonorable discharge.  In support of his appeal he submits a copy of a handgun training certificate, a copy of certificate of completion of a level one training course and a copy of a certificate of completion to a basic security officer training course.

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

On 28 January 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a stock control supplyman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 28 May 1976, to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 March 1977 and to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 December 1977.  On 17 September 1978, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He had completed 2 years, 7 months and 20 days of total active service.

On 18 September 1978, he reenlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-4.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 22 May 1979 for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant had NJP imposed against him on 31 March 1980 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 3 July 1980 the applicant was counseled for being absent from duty and for being derelict in his duties.  During the counseling the applicant indicated that he had been too busy with personal business to properly perform his duties.  However, in regard to his absence, he stated that he called and spoke with a person who told him not to return to work until 7 July 1980.

He was counseled on 11 July 1980 regarding his failure to secure his vehicle along with two typewriters.  During the counseling the applicant stated that he was under the impression that the equipment was secured and that he failed to secure the vehicle.

On the same day the applicant was counseled for repeated dereliction of duty and negligence.  He was informed that he was being relieved of his duties as the supply sergeant.  During the counseling the applicant stated that he would like to find a temporary job with less responsibilities until he could get his personal matters settled.  

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 17 July 1980.  The commander cited the numerous counselings and the 31 March 1980 NJP as the reasons for bar to reenlistment.

On 4 August 1980, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 15 July to 16 July 1980.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

He had NJP imposed against him on 2 September 1980 for being AWOL from 18 August until 25 August 1980.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

The record shows that the applicant was AWOL again from 16 September until 10 October 1980.  However, the record is void of any punishment that may have been imposed against him.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 3 November 1980, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 4 years and 8 months of total active service and he had 34 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was issued an RE code of 4 and an SPD code of JFS.

A review of the service record shows that the applicant made his chain of command aware that he was unable to perform his duties because of personal problems.  However, the records fail to show that he ever sought assistance through his chain of command to resolve any of the problems that he may have been experiencing.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

An RE-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification such as a bar to reenlistment.

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 appears to have been accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s post-service conduct has been noted by the Board.  His contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not substantiated by the evidence of record.  The record clearly shows that his acts of indicipline were not isolated as he went AWOL three times and he was counseled numerous times for being derelict in his duties.  Although he states he was experiencing personal problems the records fail to show that the problems he was having caused him to go AWOL or that he sought assistance through his chain of command for any of his problems.
4.  He chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

5.  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.

6.  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

___sk___  __kak___  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033352	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980/11/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100/A71.00	
2.  		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.