MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077989

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his UOTHC discharge was inappropriate because he was having family problems at the time.  

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

On 14 April 1999, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Field Artillery), and assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, for his first permanent duty station.  

The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 (PV2).  There are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition recorded in his military record.  However, the record does contain a disciplinary history that includes two separate periods of being absent without leave (AWOL), and his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  

On 23 April 2001, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 14, 
Army Regulation 635-200, for the commission of a serious offense.  The unit commander stated that the specific reason for taking the action was that the applicant was AWOL on two separate occasions from 27 November to
3 December 2000 and 21 February to 14 March 2001.  The unit commander also advised the applicant that he was recommending an UOTHC discharge.  

The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving his right to an administrative separation board, his right to personal appearance before an administrative separation board, and electing not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 2 April 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge UOTHC, and on 11 April 2002, he was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 1 day of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 27 days of time lost due to AWOL.  This document also confirms that the only award the applicant received during his active duty tenure was the Army Service Ribbon.

On 21 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to this discharge after determining that his discharge had been proper and equitable.

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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that family problems he was experiencing at the time of his discharge contributed to his misconduct and therefore, his receiving an UOTHC discharge was inappropriate.  However, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  In view of the applicant’s undistinguished record of service and his documented misconduct, the Board concludes that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and it finally concludes that relief is not warranted in this 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__  __KWL__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077989	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2002/04/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000 	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.