MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 July 2003       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082167

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 item 26 (Separation Code) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his Separation Program Designator (SPD) does not entitle him to any benefits such as medical or separation pay for 17 1/2 years of honorable service.  He contends that his records show that he has done great things for the Army and nation.  He states that he was punished with an Article 15 and Relief for Cause, that he apologized to those he hurt and his family and friends, and that all benefits such as medical, commissary/exchange, and separation pay are warranted.  In support of his application, he submits an attachment that lists all enclosures.    

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

At the time the applicant submitted his application he was a major serving on active duty.

On 5 March 2002, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command, conduct unbecoming of an officer and adultery. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and an official written reprimand.  The applicant was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Record on 11 March 2002.

On 11 March 2002, the applicant was notified of pending elimination proceedings and his requirement to show cause for retention.  On 10 April 2002, the applicant elected to appear before a Board of Inquiry to show cause for retention. 

On 18 July 2002, the applicant was notified that he was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The applicant was also notified that the Secretary of the Army had approved a recommendation by a Selective Continuation Board to allow him to continue to serve on active duty until reaching 24 years of Active Commissioned Service.  On 19 August 2002, the applicant elected to accept this period of retention up to 24 years of Active Commissioned Service.

On 28 June 2002, a Show Cause Board of Inquiry convened and substantiated the allegations against the applicant and recommended elimination from the service with an Honorable Discharge.

On 5 September 2002, the separation authority concurred with the findings and recommendations of the Board of Inquiry that the applicant be eliminated from service with an Honorable Discharge.    

On 15 October 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Review Boards approved the elimination of the applicant from the service and directed that he be honorably discharged.

On 3 December 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.

Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant's DD Form 214 shows “JNC”.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JNC” is “Unacceptable Conduct” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b.  This separation code is used for an involuntary discharge. 

Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes policies and procedures governing transfer and discharge of officer personnel.  Chapter 4 of this regulation prescribes reasons and procedures for eliminating officers of substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security.  

Paragraph 4-1 of Army Regulation 600-8-24 states:  An officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the nation have placed in the officer’s patriotism, valor, fidelity and competence.  An officer is expected to display responsibility commensurate to this special trust and confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times.  However, an officer who will not or can not maintain those standards will be separated.

Paragraph 4-2b of Army Regulation 600-8-24 specifically governs elimination for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction or in the interests of national security.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

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 separation code used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  

2.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the separation code issued to him was in error or unjust. 
3.  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.

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

FNE____  MVT_____  ENA_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082167	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030715	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.