MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-10124A

	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.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson 		Member	

	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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no statement.

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

He had prior service in the Army National Guard.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1994.

On 8 February 1996, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 - 7 February 1996.

On 6 March 1996, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 8 May 1996, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in proceedings and psychiatrically cleared for administrative action.

On 5 June 1996, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for pattern of misconduct, citing the applicant’s two Article 15s and several counseling statements for indebtedness and lying about his mother’s illness.  He recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.  His intermediate commanders also recommended separation with a general discharge.

The applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He requested consulting counsel.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 June 1996, the applicant was confined by civil authorities for an unknown offense and released on 21 June 1996.

On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.  This approval is not on file.

On 10 July 1996, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months and 27 days of creditable active service and had 12 days of lost time.  
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.

On 27 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

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.  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.  Considering his numerous, though relatively minor, infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general was and still is appropriate.

3.  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