MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC96-07539 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. The following members, a quorum, were present: The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 honorable. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was deployed to Egypt in support of Operation Desert Storm and to Cuba during the Haitian Refugee Crisis. He also states that he had served most his term with good conduct until receipt of a general discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted on 15 May 1990 for a period of 3 years as a light weapons infantryman. In May 1991, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements for failure to follow orders, disobeying a lawful order, performance counseling, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, failure to follow instructions and other similar offenses. On 29 May 1992, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for larceny. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty. The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 16 November 1992 which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative or judicial proceedings. The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 24 November 1992 for the aforementioned counseling regarding his misconduct. On 10 December 1992, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 November 1992 to 9 November 1992. His punishment consisted a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty. On 10 December 1992, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the service was being initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on acts of misconduct. He acknowledge receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived representation by counsel and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on 15 December 1992 and directed that applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions in the pay grade of E-1 on 5 January 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 21 days of total active service and had 4 days of lost time due to AWOL. The applicant has not applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge. However, the actions by this Board does not preclude the applicant from applying to the ADRB at a later date. 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: 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. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’ contentions. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record and his service was too undistinguished for further relief to be appropriate. 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 JHL CMF KW DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director