MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:              29 July 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AC97-07861

	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 following members, a quorum, were present:



	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 discharge (UOHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the discharge he received was unfair; that all he did were some minor offenses; that he has been suffering ever since; and that he has suffered enough.

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

On 19 July 1978 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 4 years at the age of 19.  The applicant successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.  He attended the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia, from which he was dropped based on his inability to adapt and lack of motivation. Upon completion of training the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63H (Automotive Repairman) and was assigned overseas to Germany for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record indicates the highest grade he held on active duty was specialist/E-4.  The record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history which includes the applicant undergoing a trial by summary court-martial; and his  acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on three separate occasions.

On 14 February 1979 the applicant accepted an NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty on 11 February 1979.  His punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $50.00.

On 10 September 1981 the applicant was tried by summary court-martial and found guilty of three specifications of violation of Article 86 (failure to repair twice on 25 June and once on 9 July 1981); and four specifications of violation of Article 91 (disobeying lawful orders on 25 May, 11 June, and twice on 14 July 1981).  The resultant sentence included a reduction to the rank of private/E-1, and 30 days confinement at hard labor.

While undergoing rehabilitation at the retraining brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas, the applicant accepted two more NJP’s.  The first on 12 November 1981 for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment included 14 days of restriction and extra duty (7 days suspended), and a forfeiture of $100.00 ($50.00 suspended).  The second on 10 December 1981 for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty on 8 December 1981.  He was punished with 14 days of restriction and extra duty (10 days suspended).

On 16 November 1981 the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant that he was being considered for elimination from the service for misconduct, under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, based on his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  The unit commander provided as support for his action, 
13 records of counseling for a myriad of disciplinary infractions the applicant had committed while undergoing rehabilitation in the retraining brigade.  The packet also included the applicant’s record of trial by summary court-martial and accepted NJP’s.  The applicant was advised of his rights, consulted counsel, and completed his election of rights.  He waived consideration of his case before a board of officers and personal appearance before a board of officers; in addition, he elected not make a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant also acknowledged his understanding that misconduct was the basis for separation and that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on his receipt of a UOHC.

On 3 December 1981 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be issued a UOHC.  Accordingly, on 14 December 1981 the applicant was discharged after completing 3 years, 4 months, and 
4 days of active military service, and accruing 22 days of time lost due to confinement.

On 2 June 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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, 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 contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons 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 the aforementioned 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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director