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

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the general discharge was too harsh.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 1988 and received a general discharge on 4 March 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for minor disciplinary infractions.  The highest pay grade he held was E-4.

His awards include the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Expert Badge with pistol bar and the First Class Qualification Badge with hand grenade bar.

On 4 February 1993 the applicant’s unit commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service for minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for the proposed action was the applicant’s receipt of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to obey orders, two alcohol related offenses (disorderly conduct and driving under the influence), several negative counseling statements concerning his performance of duty and disciplinary involvement with civilian authorities.  The commander also recommended that rehabilitative efforts be waived and the applicant be immediately discharged.

After consultation with counsel, the applicant provided a written statement to the discharge authority requesting that his separation be held in abeyance while he was given an opportunity to prove himself once again, and if that were not possible, he be given an honorable discharge so as not to adversely impact his veterans educational benefits.

The discharge authority waived rehabilitation transfer requirements and approved his separation.  He directed that a General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) Certificate be issued.  

On 26 December 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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.  There is no evidence in the record nor has the applicant provided any evidence to indicate that his discharge was improper.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  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

3.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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