MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           11 June 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065841

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 be upgraded and the reason and authority for his separation be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  “Discrimination against none religion, organization, union individuals, and because I was not intoxicated, and also because the civilian sector of America did not have anything to do.”

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

He enlisted on 26 January 1988, was awarded the military occupational specialty of food service specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-3.

On 14 January 1993, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his separation due to misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  The stated reasons for that recommendation was the applicant’s driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving while his post driving privileges were suspended, having in his possession $350.00 worth of stolen property, several incidents involving disobeying lawful orders, failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, leaving his appointed place of duty on several occasions, lying to a noncommissioned officer, and uttering a dishonored check.

The applicant waived his rights, the applicant’s commander’s recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority, and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense on 26 February 1993.

On 10 April 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his characterization of service, but changed the reason for his discharge from Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, to just Misconduct.

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, 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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s discharge was processed in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, with no indication that his material rights were violated in any way.

2.  The numerous acts of misconduct committed by the applicant warranted separation for misconduct.

3.  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

___fne___  ___rwa__  ___hbo__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065841	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.