MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 January 2002 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065388

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is unable to access the money he contributed to the Army for college because of this discharge.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 8 September 1987 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for duty as a cannon fire direction specialist.  On 8 March 1989, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  He served as an intelligence analyst in Korea for almost 16 months and was promoted to E-5 on 1 December 1990.    

Between 24 July 1991 and 10 December 1991, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for missing formations, barracks and wall locker violations and security violations.   

On 31 August 1991, the applicant was cited for a traffic violation by civil authorities. 

On 24 October 1991, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to obey a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.

On 29 October 1991, while in Korea, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for falsifying an official record.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.  

In December 1991, the applicant’s command was notified of his failure to pay two debts (automobile loan and telephone bill). 

On 6 March 1992, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and separation medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111121.

On 11 March 1992, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and based his recommendation on the applicant’s dishonorable failure to pay just debts, disobeying a lawful order, falsifying an official record, a traffic violation and numerous failures to repair.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to counsel and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 11 March 1992, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct).

The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.

The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 3 April 1992 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct).  He had served 4 years, 6 months and 
26 days of total active service.

On 12 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge. 

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, 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.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

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 considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded for entitlement to educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits.

2.  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.  

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

AAO____  MHM____  KAH____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065388	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920403	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct (pattern of misconduct)	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.