MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 July 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080578

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, 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:  That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is making this request based on his military records as well as the life style that he has lived since being separated.  He submits in support of his request a letter that shows he volunteered to serve on a legislative advisory committee on economic development for the state representative for the 80th District, Chicago, Illinois, in May 1997; a certificate from the Chicago Miracle Temple Church in recognition of his outstanding and faithful services as a deacon, dated 28 December 1997; and a certificate for completion of an industrial electricians course in May 2002.

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

That on 1 November 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 45G (Fire Control Systems Repairer).  He completed the required training and he was awarded MOS 45G.  He was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, and he served without any recorded incidents from July 1984- October 1985 when he was reassigned to Germany.  

On 9 September 1986, while assigned to Germany, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for twice disobeying a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 23 July and on 26 August 1986.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $180.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty.  

General counseling forms show the applicant was counseled numerous times between July and September 1986 for various misconduct, to include: having a negative attitude; verbally refusing to follow orders; disobeying a lawful order on several occasions; being disrespectful towards a NCO on more than one occasions; failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; and failing to report to formation. 

On 10 November 1986, as a result of misconduct, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally-trained personnel.  His behavior was normal; he was fully alert and oriented; his mood was unremarkable and his thinking was clear; his though content was normal and his memory was good.  He met retention requirements.  He was determined to be mentally responsible and to have the mental capacity to understand, and participate in, separation board proceedings. 

On 9 October 1986, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct with a GD.  The commander cited the bases for his recommendation were:  the applicant's negative attitude; that he missed numerous formations; that, on 25 August 1986, he refused an order to stand at the position of parade rest, walked away and entered his barracks room, refused to open the door when ordered to do so, and held the door from the inside when two NCO's attempted to enter.  Also, on 29 September 1986, he failed to be present at the morning formation and was counseled and informed that he would perform 7 days of extra duty.  He told the first sergeant he would not perform the extra duty.  On 8 October 1986, the first sergeant ordered him to report to his section for duty after he was found sleeping in the barracks during duty hours.  He failed to follow the order.  He also stated he wanted out of the Army whether by court-martial or [administrative] chapter.  The commander believed that, in view of his negative attitude and repeated acts of misconduct, it was clear the applicant had no intention of following the guidelines for military laws and regulations.

On 16 October 1986, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He was also advised of the rights available to him.  He was not entitled to an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 25 November 1986, the intermediate commander recommended approval and that rehabilitation efforts be waived.

On 9 December 1986, the appropriate authority waived further rehabilitation efforts, approved the recommendation, and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD.  

The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 30 December 1986, he was separated with a GD for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month, and 30 days of creditable military service.  He had no recorded lost time.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.  

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, to include abuse of alcohol, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an HD may be granted.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.

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

4.  The applicant's behavior and attitude were inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

5.  The Board notes the applicant’s submission outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his efforts.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

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

__mkp___  __wtm___  __teo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080578	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030729	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19861230	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.