MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           14 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001063154

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 general discharge, under honorable conditions upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he did not know he could lose his educational benefits.  He would never have agreed to give up his educational benefits because he had already paid his money for it.  He served his time without complaint.  He was a proud member of Desert Storm.  He indicates that, “now, at this time when we need to pull together and help one another, please grant me the right to have my discharge turn[ed] into honorable and my educational benefits restored or, if not, I would like to request my money back that was taken from my check for Educational Purposes.”

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

On 22 February 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Army.

On 24 February 1989, he authenticated a DD Form 2366 (Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (GI Bill)), which indicated, in pertinent part, that “I must receive an honorable discharge for service which established entitlement to the GI Bill of 1984.”

On 1 September 1990, he was advanced to pay grade E-4.

During the period 21 October 1990 to 20 April 1991, he served in Southwest Asia.

During the period July 1991 through July 1992, he was formally counseled on numerous occasions for violations ranging from his missing formations, apathy, negligence, failure to repair, absence without leave (AWOL), and for being missing from place of duty.

On 16 April 1992, a bar to reenlistment was approved based on his lack of demonstrated potential for future service.  He indicated that he did not appeal the bar to reenlistment.

On 23 June 1992, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice for being AWOL for the period 2 through 9 June 1992.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $234 pay per month for one month, restriction for 14 days and extra duty for     14 days. 

On 4 September 1992, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct and of his rights.

On 9 September 1992, he acknowledged his commander’s notification.  He waived consideration of and personal appearance before an administrative board.  He indicated that statements in his own behalf would not be submitted and he waived consulting counsel.

The appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate (GDC).

On 29 September 1992, he was discharged under the above-cited regulation and issued a GDC.  His separation document indicates he had 3 years, 7 months and 8 days of creditable service and 7 days of lost time.

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, conviction 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.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

Chapter 30, Title 38 of the US Code established eligibility requirement for participation in the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill).  It provided that individuals who entered an initial period of active duty on or after    1 July 1985 would be automatically enrolled in the program unless they opted to disenroll within a specific time frame established by the individual services.  Once enrolled in the New GI Bill the individual’s basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.  An honorable discharge is required for receipt of entitlements, which amounted to $300.00 per month for 36 months, for individuals who completed at least 3 years of active duty.

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

3.  The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was aware of and agreed to the conditions of a general discharge.

4.  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 preceding requirement.

5.  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

_jhl____  _rwa____  __wtm___   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063154	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020314	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.