PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER: 

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. 		Director	
	Ms.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

3.  The applicant states that he was a good soldier and he was never disciplined for his work.  He was disciplined for driving under the influence.  He does not feel that his entire life should be in jeopardy because he drove while he was under the influence. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he successfully completed a previous term of honorable service in the Regular Army (RA) from 9 September 
1992 through 8 January 1995.  He had no recorded indisciplines and was advanced to pay grade E-4.  He had 2 years and 4 months of creditable service.

5.  He reenlisted in the RA on 9 January 1995 for 3 years, pay grade E-4 and duty in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). 

6.  On 27 March 1996, he received a Memorandum of Reprimand for falsifying an application for a driver's license.  On 23 September 1996, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for driving while intoxicated (DWI) (24 August 1996).  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to grade E-3, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

7.  On 1 October 1996, he was enrolled in the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  His progress report is not a matter of record. On 30 January 1997, he was counseled for driving his privately owned vehicle on post after his post driving privileges had been suspended.

8.  On 6 March 1997, he accepted a second NJP for violating a lawful order.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to grade E-2, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

9.  On 8 July 1997, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense with a general discharge.  The commander cited the applicant’s record of nonjudicial punishments as the basis for the recommendation.  

10.  On 9 July 1997, the applicant acknowledged notification.  He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects and the rights available to him.  He waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 15 July 1997, the intermediate commander recommended separation with a GD.  On 22 July 1997, the approval authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense with a GD.

12.  On 25 July 1997, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
635-200, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense with a GD.  He completed a total of 4 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active military service.

13.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) is erroneous.  The certificate does not correctly show the applicant's prior honorable period of enlistment 9 September 1992 through 8 January 1995.

14.  Evidence of record indicates that on 7 April 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.

15.  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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The overall quality of the applicant's second period of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  The discharge process was proper and equitable and the reason and characterization of service from 9 January 
1995 - 25 July 1997 is appropriate.

2.  Although the applicant was not eligible for a complete and unconditional separation on 8 January 1995, the honorable discharge issued to him for the purpose of reenlistment terminated a period covering more than 2 years of honorable service without any recorded indisciplines or other negative actions.

3.  The circumstances of the applicant's honorable discharge on 25July 1997 has worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits for the preceding period of service.

4.  In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of this more than 2 years of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 January 1995 as other than a complete and unconditional separation from military service.
5.  However, his DD Form 214 issued on 25 July 1997 is also in error in that his first period of service is not recorded as a prior enlistment.  

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 8 January 1995; and 

b.  by issuing to the individual concerned two DD Forms 214 denoting his two periods of service from 9 September 1992 - 8 January 1995 and from 
9 January 1995 - 25 July 1997. 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025042	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990527	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970725	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	partial relief (complete and unconditional separation)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	He does not feel that his entire life should be in jeopardy, because he drove under the influence.  He was a good soldier, and he was never disciplined for his work. 
	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.