MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063175

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he took the blame for someone else, not knowing the penalty would be to lose his rank and his honorable discharge.  An upgraded discharge might help him get his education benefits.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1987.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember).  He was advanced to Private First Class, E-3 on     6 September 1987.

On 4 February 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself from his unit.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty.

On 28 February 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of marijuana as detected through urinalysis testing.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $349.00 pay for 2 months, 45 days restriction, and 45 days extra duty.

On or about 3 March 1989, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  The reasons cited were the applicant’s positive urinalysis and additional misconduct (the previous Article 15).

On 3 March 1989, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and appearance before such a board conditional upon receiving a general discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.

On 14 March 1989, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 24 February 1989, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  He had completed 2 years and 19 days of creditable active service and had no 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 and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

The applicant had applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He had stated that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.  He had been a model soldier but it was different when he got to his permanent assignment.  Then, his mother got cancer.  He asked his captain about getting a discharge and went over his head to the Inspector General when apparently his captain did not help him.  His captain then made sure he got a discharge and did not care what kind.  On         3 October 2001, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request.

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 this 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 applicant has provided no evidence to show that he was falsely accused of being absent from his unit or that his urinalysis test came up with a false positive.

4.  The Board notes that the applicant’s first Article 15 was for a relatively minor offense.  However, considering the closeness of the commission of the two offenses, the initiation of his separation action appears to have been appropriate. It appears that his chain of command did take into account his previous good service which led to his receiving a characterization of his discharge as general rather than under other than honorable conditions.  The Board concludes that his overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that a an upgrade to fully honorable would be justified.

5.  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

__slp___  __alr___  __teo___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063175	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011023	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890324	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.