MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           17 OCTOBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075374

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he does not believe he deserved the under other than honorable conditions discharge and contends that he was not responsible for his "wife's actions."  He states he was not aware, at the time, that his wife was writing checks with insufficient funds and believes that he "received the short end of the stick."  He states that he is now trying to improve his life and "obtain a job that [he] can call a career."  The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty on 20 September 1978 at the age of 19, with 12 years of formal education and a general technical score of 100.  He successfully completed training and in December 1978 he was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma as an ammunition handler.

In July 1979 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave between 15 June 1979 and 10 July 1979.  In April 1980 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for breaking restriction.  In July 1980 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for several counts of failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

On 6 August 1980 the applicant was barred from reenlisting by his unit commander. His commander cited the applicant's summary court-martial conviction, two records of non-judicial punishment, and one record of insufficient funds, which was "made good."  The commander also noted the applicant was often absent from his place of duty, that he was a malingerer and shirked his duties.

On 15 August 1980 he was convicted by a summary court-martial for breaking restrictions.  In June 1981 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave between 1 and 3 June 1981.

In July 1981 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty due to acts or patterns of misconduct.  The commander cited the applicant's two summary court-martial convictions, three records of nonjudicial punishment, numerous counseling statements, and

his local bar to reenlistment as the basis for the recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and requested that he be allowed to present his case to a board of officers.  In October 1981 the applicant appeared before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged from the service for misconduct.  During the hearing, the applicant made note that he was having financial problems but did not attribute those problems to his spouse writing checks with insufficient funds.  The board concluded that the applicant was "undesirable for further retention in the military service because of misconduct" and recommended that he be discharged.

The board's recommendation was approved and on 11 January 1981 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  At the time of the applicant's separation, he had approximately 38 months of active Federal service.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1), in effect at the time, provided for the administrative separation of soldiers involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge was considered appropriate.

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 has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.  His contention that he was separated solely because his spouse wrote checks with insufficient funds is without foundation.  The Board notes that the applicant's separation was based primarily on his records of non-judicial punishment, his court-martial convictions, and his numerous counseling statements.

2.  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.

3.  The applicant's contentions that he needs his discharge upgraded in order to seek employment does not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief.

4.  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

___JL___  __MVT __  __RTD __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075374	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021017	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.