MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION  

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           14 January 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200277122

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 (GD) be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was young at the time of his discharge and has had no trouble since.  He adds that he has always advised youth to go in the service. 

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

On 10 March 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed his military training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist).  He served overseas in his MOS from 17 August 1983 to 7 February 1985.  He returned to the United States and was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  He had been promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 1 October 1984.

On 14 August 1985, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $177.00 pay and14 days extra duty.  The applicant appealed the punishment, which was denied on 16 August 1985.

On 19 August 1985, the applicant received NJP for one specification of being disrespectful in deportment toward a Warrant Officer by willfully and wrongfully failing to render a proper military salute toward a commissioned officer and for disobeying a lawful order to be in proper military uniform.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, suspended until 17 February 1986, forfeiture of $250 pay per month for 2 months, suspended until 18 November 1985, and 
45 days of extra duty. 

On 24 October 1985, a bar to reenlistment was approved, based on the applicant receiving two Article 15’s and five counseling statements, received on 3 and 
12 June 1985, 7 August 1985 and 19 July 1985.

On 13 December 1985, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He consulted with legal counsel, was advised of his rights, and that he could receive a discharge under honorable conditions (UHC).  He requested to make a statement in his own behalf, but failed to submit his request within the 15-day requirement.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination, which cleared him for separation.

On the same day, the applicant’s intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation and further recommended that any rehabilitation action be waived.  
On 18 December 1985, the approving authority waived rehabilitation and approved his discharge for misconduct, with a GD.  

On 2 January 1986, the applicant was discharged with a GD, under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He had 2 years, 9 months and 23 days of creditable service and no lost time.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.  

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 included minor disciplinary infarctions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and exertion or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted in certain cases.

There are no records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge case within the 15-year time limit.

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.  The applicant's contention of youthful immaturity is noted; however, he had demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completion of training and almost 2 years of service without an offense of record. 

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of any procedural errors that would jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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

___MKP_  ___JLP__  ___MMB_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077122	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986.01.02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200 CH14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A 67.50	
2.	A	
3.	A	
4.	A	
5.	A	
6.