APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served honorably and his discharge should have been honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 17 February 1987 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years, a cash bonus, airborne training, and military occupational specialty (MOS) training as a 13E (Cannon Fire Direction Specialist). He successfully completed One Station Unit Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and basic airborne training at Fort Benning, Georgia at which time he was awarded MOS 13E and an additional skill identifier (ASI) as a parachutist (P). Upon his graduation from the basic airborne course he was awarded the parachutist badge and sent to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for his first permanent duty assignment. On 16 June 1988 the applicant accepted a battery level non judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ. The NJP contained two specifications, the first for violation of Article 92 (violating a lawful general regulation) and the second for violation of Article 107 (making a false official statement with the intent to deceive). His punishment for these offenses included reduction to the rank of private/E-2 and a forfeiture of $175.00 for one month. On 5 July 1988 the applicant was barred from reenlistment by his unit commander based on the NJP he accepted on 16 June 1988. On 30 September 1988 the applicant accepted a field grade NJP for violation of Article 112a (wrongful use of marijuana). His punishment included reduction to the rank of private/E-1, forfeiture of $335.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction. The applicant was notified by his commanding officer (CO) of his intent to separate him, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. His CO indicated he would recommend the applicant receive a GD. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the CO's intent with his signature. On 16 November 1988 the applicant authenticated a statement with his signature which indicated that while in consultation with counsel he was advised of his legal rights, declined representation by counsel, and declined to submit statements on his own behalf. On 16 November 1988 the applicant's CO initiated the separation action and recommended a characterization of service of under honorable conditions with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate and the intermediate level commander recommended approval of the action and concurred in the recommended characterization of service. On 17 November 1988 the appropriate approval authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, on 25 November 1988 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of active military service. On 25 June 1997 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure 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. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 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