MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:   14 July 1999                       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021803

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel a. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That his US Army Reserve (USAR) record is unblemished and was not considered during his discharge process.  His certificates of achievements, his age and the fact that he was experiencing marital problems were not considered in the discharge process.  He submitted a certificate of appreciation, a certificate of achievement, a certificate of recognition, five certificates of training, general counseling statements, and his soldier qualification test (SQT) score in support of his request. 

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

That he served in the USAR from 28 May 1986 through 16 January 1989 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  On 
17 January 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years, and his previous MOS, which was now MOS 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  He was 19 years old at the time.

His record shows numerous counselings for failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  He was also counseled for illegal possession of a smoke grenade, for a reckless driving conviction by civil authorities, for lying and making false statements, and for substandard performance and conduct.  

On 15 May 1989 and on 29 November 1989, nonjudicial punishments (NJP's) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, were imposed for failure to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 17 April, 13 , 14, and 15 May 1989, and on 17 November 1989.  His punishments included forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 24 August 1989, he received NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade 
E-2 to pay grade E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. On 15 September 1989, the suspended punishment was vacated when the applicant failed to repair on 30 August 1989.

On 20 December 1989, the applicant received a fourth NJP when he broke restriction on 2 December 1989.  His punishment included 45 days extra duty and restriction.

On 25 January 1990, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct.  The commander cited the numerous NJP’s that the applicant had received as the basis for the recommendation.  

The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects and the rights available to him.  He was not entitled to consideration or personal appearance by a board of officers.  The applicant submitted a memorandum in his own behalf he stated his accomplishments, his achievements, and his training.  He also requested an honorable discharge.  He did not mention that marital problems or his age impaired his ability to serve.

On 5 February 1990, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD, for misconduct, under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  On 8 February 1990, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 1 year and 22 days of active military service on the enlistment under review.  He had also completed 4 months and 3 days of prior active military service and 2 years, 3 months, and 16 days of inactive service. 

Evidence of record indicates that on 14 April 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter l4 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their service obligation.

4.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his marital problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

5.  The Board took into consideration all of the applicants service as well as infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The Board concluded that the discrediting entries in his record were not outweighed by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed.

6.  The Board notes the applicant’s personal statement and other documents with his application outlining his successful accomplishments while he was on active duty and his accomplishments since his separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

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

8.  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

SAC____  EW______  JS______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021803	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990714	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900208	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	A67.50	
2.	A92.03	
3.	A93.01	
4.	A93.07	
5.		
6.