MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-07956

	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:

	Mr.			Chairperson	
	Mr.			Member	
	Mr.			Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. 	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	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:  In effect, that his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was told before leaving the Army that he could get his GI Bill; that he could get his SGLI; and in addition; he needs the upgrade to further his education and get a better job

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

On 28 April 1993, at Fort Eustis, Virginia, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  At the time of his reenlistment he had attained the rank of specialist/E-4; held military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic); and had completed 3 years, 8 months, and 13 days of honorable service which included overseas tours of duty in Korea and Somalia.

The applicant’s record for the period of service under review documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition.  However, the record does contain an extensive record of disciplinary infractions including:  acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, and an extensive record of formal counseling.

 at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; and a reduction in rank to private first class/E-3.company punishment on three different occasions.

Between November 1993 and June 1994 the applicant accumulated nine (9) formal counseling statements for a myriad of misconduct which included several incidents of failure to repair and AWOL.

On 5 May 1994 a Report of Medical Physical Examination cleared the applicant for administrative separation.

On 22 June 1994 a Report of Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for administrative separation.

His commanding officer notified him of his intent to initiate his discharge from service under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, chapter 14, AR 635-200 for misconduct - a pattern of misconduct.  His commanding officer indicated that the aforementioned misconduct was the reason for his action and that he would recommend the applicant receive a GD.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant acknowledged this notification.  Having consulted with legal counsel, the applicant requested representation by counsel and indicated that he would submit  a statement in his own behalf.  The latter statement is not in his file.  On 15 September 1994 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge and issuance of a GD.  Accordingly, on 22 November 1994 he was discharged after completing only 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of the period of service under review.

5.  LEGAL/REGULATORY BASIS FOR SEPARATION:  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, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

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

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director