APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he cannot find out why he was discharged.  Based on the character and type of discharge on his DD Form 214, he cannot find a job.  He needs the Montgomery GI Bill to afford to stay in school to become a military lawyer.

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

The applicant enlisted and entered on active duty on 
15 October 1992.  He completed basic, advanced individual training, and field artillery training.

He received counseling on 12 occasions for offenses of no hair cut, unshined shoes, indebtedness, writing a check without sufficient funds, AWOL, disorderly, absence from his place of duty, and uniform appearance.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ on 4 occasions for offenses of AWOL, failure to pay debts, failure to return from leave and failure to report to place of duty.

He was barred from reenlistment on 15 February 1994 for financial mismanagement, failure to follow instructions, missing formation and appearance of uniform.

On 16 June 1995 the applicant was notified of recommended separation with a general discharge due to misconduct.  He elected to consult with counsel, but did not submit a statement in his behalf.  

The separation authority waived any further rehabilitative efforts, approved the recommendation and directed that a General discharge Certificate be issued.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  He had 2 years 11 months and 20 days of creditable service.



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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The contention that that he does not know why he was discharged, is unsupported by the evidence of record

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 the aforementioned 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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director