MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  12 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001063620

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his current discharge does not enable him to work in the field of expertise that he was trained for in the Army.  He also states that he has seven children and needs to get a better job.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) on 10 January 1970, as a unit supply specialist.  He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 23 April 1970, and was released from ADT on 20 August 1970, and returned to control of the TXARNG.  He was honorably discharged from the TXARNG on 18 July 1974.

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 1975, and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 15 March 1978, in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 16 March 1978.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 effective 24 November 1983. 

Between February 1985 and July 1985, the applicant received three counseling statements and four letters pertaining to his indebtedness and spousal support.

On 30 July 1985, 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 misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s chronic financial indebtedness and for being absent from his appointed place of duty.

On 1 August 1985, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.

The applicant consulted with counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by counsel, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he did not choose to oppose the recommendation of his commander.  He felt that he was unable to get a handle on his financial situation while serving in the Army and requested that his case be handled expeditiously and that he be discharged immediately.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 5 August 1985, and was found qualified for separation.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on the same day, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 22 August 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 30 August 1985.  He had a total of 10 years, 9 months, and 25 days of creditable service.  

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on
4 September 1989, for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that
his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 4 June 1992.

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, 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.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention; however, he was counseled by his chain of command pertaining to his chronic indebtedness and was aware of the consequences of his pattern of misconduct, which would result in discharge.

2.  While the Board is empathetic, it does not upgrade discharges in order to obtain employment opportunities.  The applicant was aware of the consequences of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and his pattern of misconduct is not sufficiently mitigated to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  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.  

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were 
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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 this 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

___iw___  ___gw___  ___rw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063620	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020312	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850830	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200, C, 14	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.