MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF
	    


	BOARD DATE:            30 September 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC97-07804

	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.



	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 (UOHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

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

On 30 December 1976 the applicant reenlisted in the  Regular Army for 3 years while assigned to Nuremburg, Germany.  At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 2 years, 9 months, 9 days of honorable service, attained the rank of specialist/E-4, and held military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).

The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was sergeant/E-5 which he attained on 27 June 1977; and he earned the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.  The applicant’s record is void of any additional acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, the record does contain a  history of disciplinary infractions which includes the applicant’s  acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on four separate occasions.

On 9 December 1977 the applicant accepted an NJP for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $100.00.

On 28 February 1978 the applicant accepted a second NJP for 10 incidents of falsely and wrongly obtaining telephone services and 1 incident of disobeying a lawful order.   The resultant punishment included a reduction in grade to specialist/E-4; forfeiture of $267.00 per month for 2 months; and 30 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 8 August 1978 the applicant accepted another NJP for being AWOL from 
22 to 23 July 1978.  His punishment included a reduction in grade to private first class/E-3 which was suspended for 30 days and 14 days of extra duty.  The suspended reduction was vacated on 30 August 1978.

On 1 December 1978 the applicant accepted his last NJP for two separate incidents of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.  His punishment for these offenses included a reduction in grade to private/E-2; forfeiture of $100.00 which was suspended for 60 days and 14 days of restriction and extra duty. 

On 2 January 1979 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him, under the provisions of chapter 14 , AR 635-200 for misconduct.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s frequent occurrences of misconduct.  This included a 72 day period of AWOL from 7 May to 19 July 1977; a 3 day AWOL from 5 to 7 May 1978; his record of indebtedness; an incident of operating a vehicle in a reckless manner; quitting a military school without authority; and the applicant’s extensive record of NJP’s, as his reasons for the action.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s notification, consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights.  The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 8 February 1979 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a UOHC discharge.  Accordingly, on 16 February 1979 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 4 days of his current enlistment, a total of 4 years, 
8 months, and 13 days of active military service, and accruing 73 days of time lost due to AWOL.

On 11 September 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, and desertion or absence without leave.

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 concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.  

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  

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 the aforementioned 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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director