MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082350

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded so that he can obtain educational benefits to better himself and better provide for his family.

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

He enlisted at the age of 21, on 14 April 1998, for a period of 4 years, training as a multi-channel transmission systems operator and a $4,000 cash enlistment bonus.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Korea on 30 October 1998.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1999 and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas on 18 November 1999.

On 6 March 2001, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for stealing (shoplifting) three playstation video games from the post exchange.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.  

On 25 June 2001, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior commissioned officer, two specifications of disobeying lawful orders from superior noncommissioned officers and one specification of using disrespectful language towards a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 26 July 2001, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He cited the applicant's disciplinary record and his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions as the basis for his recommendation.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that a general discharge was disproportionate to his admitted misconduct.  He further stated that his overall record of service should be considered and asserted that his discharge alone was sufficient punishment.  He requested that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate so that he could qualify for veterans educational benefits and would not be subjected to prejudice in the civilian community with a less than honorable discharge. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 31 July 2001 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 August 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He had served 3 years, 3 months and 24 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 8 July 2002 for an upgrade of his discharge and cited the same reasons he has cited to this Board.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request on 12 November 2002.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally 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.  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 procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions that his entire record of service should be taken into consideration and that he should be given an honorable discharge so he can use his educational benefits.  However, given the fact that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for the type of offenses committed by the applicant, it is apparent that his record was considered by the chain of command at the time. Furthermore, the Board does not find that the desire to obtain educational benefits as sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief, given the circumstances of his case.

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

__jm____  ___lds___  ___tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082350	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/08/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  626	144.6000/A60.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.