MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075992

	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	
	Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 fully honorable and that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed from misconduct.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it has been 10 years since he was discharged.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 March 1988 for 4 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

Between 7 November 1990 and 20 February 1991, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for failure to repair.

On 8 March 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment was a reduction to Private First Class, E-3, a forfeiture of $216.00 pay (both suspended) until 5 June 1991, and 14 days extra duty.  The suspension was vacated as he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 14 to on or about 22 May 1991.

On 10 July 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 14 May to on or about    22 May 1991.  His punishment was a reduction to Private, E-2, a forfeiture of $197.00 pay, restriction for 14 days, and extra duty for 14 days.

On 10 June 1991, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was found to have the mental capability to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.  It was noted that the brief mental status evaluation did not suggest the presence of a psychotic thought process or major affective disorder and formal psychological evaluation was not indicated at that time.  He was cleared for administrative actions as deemed appropriate by his command.  

On 20 June 1991, the applicant completed a separation physical.  He was found to be qualified for separation.  

On 19 July 1991, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense (AWOL and failure to repair).  

On 19 July 1991, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.
On 30 July 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 13 August 1991, 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 - commission of a serious offense.  He had completed 3 years, 4 months, and 15 days of creditable active service and had 14 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 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.  

On 19 May 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge but changed the narrative reason for his discharge from misconduct - commission of a serious offense to misconduct (under current standards).

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.  It is acknowledged that the first two and one-half years of the applicant's four-year enlistment appear to have been free of misconduct; however, considering his two Article 15s and his other infractions of military discipline, though minor, the characterization of his discharge as general was appropriate.

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

__RJW__  __RWA__  __JTM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075992	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1991/08/13	
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.