MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079161

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he thought his career would be good at the time he entered the Army.  During his service in Germany everything went great, and he earned a Professional Development Ribbon and a second award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  However, when he arrived at Fort Riley, Kansas, for some reason he started going downhill.  He states that he had a good enlistment his first time around, but then experienced family problems.  He lost his father and went through a divorce.  These problems resulted in his going absent without leave (AWOL).  At that time, someone asked if anyone wanted to get out of the Army, so he did.  He claims that he did not realize what kind of discharge he would receive and now that he is older the discharge bothers him. He concludes by indicating that he would like his discharge upgraded to an HD for the benefit of him and his family. 

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

He initially entered the Army on 15 June 1978, and he continuously served on active duty until being discharged UOTHC on 14 February 1986.  His 
Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (Armor Crewman), and that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five (SP5).  It also confirms that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:  Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon: Army Good Conduct Medal (2ndAward); and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle & Pistol).  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 17 October 1983, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty; and on 
23 May 1985, for being AWOL from on or about 6 to on or about 8 May 1985.  In addition, on 24 December 1985, the applicant was convicted of two specifications of being AWOL by a summary court-martial.  The first period was from on or about 12 to on or about 16 November 1985 and the second from on or about 9 to on or about 12 December 1985. 

On 9 January 1986, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of serious misconduct.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s record of NJP and his conviction by a summary court-martial; in addition, to numerous letters of indebtedness, nonsupport of his dependents, a dishonored check, and an AWOL period between 22 February and 23 April 1982, for which there was no disposition documented in the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) as the reasons for taking the separation action.  

On 15 January 1986, the applicant consulted legal counsel, who advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving the following rights:  consideration of his case by an administrative separation board; personal appearance before an administrative separation board; consulting counsel; and he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  

On 7 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge.  On 14 February 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 7 years, 4 months, and 29 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued a total of 90 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his first period of service was honorable and that he was experiencing family problems that impaired his ability to serve at the time of his discharge processing.  However, the Board finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable law and regulations in effect at the time.  Further, it concludes that based on his extensive disciplinary history, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  The  Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  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.

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

__SAC__  __TSK _  __ SLP__  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079161	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/02/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.