MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034047

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he informed his unit of his whereabouts 
and vehicle problems and returned as soon as possible.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 8 November 1983 as a motor transport operator.

On 18 September 1985, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 30 July 1985 to 4 August 1985 (6 days).  His punishment consisted of 30 days extra duty, 15 days restriction, a forfeiture of pay and reduction from pay grade E-3 to E-2 (suspended).

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 19 August 1986 for being AWOL from 7 July 1986 to 10 July 1986 (4 days) and for failure to pay his debts. His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay and confinement for 20 days.

On 21 August 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s summary court-martial conviction and AWOL.

After consulting with counsel, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same day the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct.

On 28 August 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 31 July 1986 which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 31 July 1986
and was found qualified for separation.

The applicant was discharged on 10 September 1986.  He had a total of 2 years, 
10 months, and 7 days of creditable service and had 26 days of lost time due to AWOL.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 18 October 1999.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable, and denied his request on 29 November 1999.

Army regulation 635-200 sets for 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, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  

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 therefore were appropriate considering all of 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

HOF____  MW_____  DW_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034047	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860910	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.