APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not given a chance to explain himself and his supervisor never stood up for him. 

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

On 6 November 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19K (M1 Armor Crewman).  On 6 January 1992, he was advanced to pay grade E-4.

On 25 January 1993, a bar to reenlistment was approved and subsequently reviewed and not removed.

On 3 March 1993, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave on 1 March 1993. His punishment was restriction and extra duty.

On 8 April 1993, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for the wrongful possession of a firearm while residing in a troop billet.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3.

The unit commander notified the applicant of his initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his patterns of misconduct (2 NJP’s and formal counselling for his failure to pay child support; his failure to renew his wife’s identification card; his failure to follow instructions; his failure to be at an appointed place at an appointed time; and for making a false official statement).  He was advised of his rights.

On 29 April 1993, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared him for separation.

On 6 May 1993, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
On 8 June 1993, he was discharged, in pay grade E-3, with a general discharge, under the above cited regulation.  His Report of Separation indicates that he had 3 years,         7 months, and 2 days of creditable service.

On 10 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  A specific category was patterns of misconduct.  A general discharge was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for patterns of misconduct.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the 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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director