RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            15 APRIL 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003096877


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John P. Infante               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Regan K. Smith                |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his military records be
corrected in such a way to permit him to receive education benefits under
the Montgomery GI Bill.

2.  The applicant states that the Army Discharge Review Board recently
upgraded his 1987 general discharge to a fully honorable discharge,
however, the Department of Veterans Affairs has still denied his petition
for education benefits.  He indicated in his self-authored statement that
the Department of Veterans Affairs informed him that unless he was credited
with serving his full 36-month enlistment he would continued to be
ineligible for benefits.  He states that he tried to do the best job he
could.

3.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted for
a period of 3 years and entered active duty on 5 November 1985.  He
successfully completed basic, advanced, and airborne training prior to
assuming duties as a food service specialist at Fort Bragg, North Carolina
in April 1986.  By February 1987 he had been promoted to pay grade E-3.

2.  In June 1987 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice for failure to repair.  His punishment included a
suspended reduction and forfeiture, and 14 days of extra duty.  In August
1987 he was punished again for being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned
officer.  His punishment this time included reduction to pay grade E-1 and
45 days of extra duty.  He was punished a third time under Article 15 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice in September 1987 for failure to
repair.  His punishment included 14 days of extra duty.

3.  In October 1987 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial
of eleven specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
His punishment included forfeiture of $100.00 and restriction to the
company area for 14 days.

4.  On 20 October 1987 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to
administratively discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for a pattern of misconduct.  The commander
recommended the applicant’s service be characterized as under honorable
conditions and that he be issued a general discharge certificate.  The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with
council, and did not submit any statements in his own behalf.

5.  The commander’s recommendation was approved and on 24 November 1987 the
applicant was discharged under honorable conditions and received a general
discharge certificate.  At the time of his separation he had completed
approximately 25 months of his 3-year enlistment.

6.  In November 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the character
of the applicant’s discharge to fully honorable.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 establishes the policies and provisions for the
separation of enlisted Soldiers.  Chapter 14 applies to various reasons for
separation for misconduct, including a pattern of 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.

8.  Information obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicates
that the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) is an educational assistance program
enacted by Congress to attract high quality men and women into the Armed
Force.  The Department of Veterans Affairs administers the program.
Essentially to be eligible for the educational assistance program a former
Soldier must have entered active duty for the first time after 30 June
1985, must not have decline participation in the MGIB in writing upon entry
into active duty, must have served 3 consecutive years of active duty
unless separated early for disability, hardship, a medical condition that
the Soldier has before service, a condition which interfered with
performance of duty, or a reduction in force.  Soldiers separated prior to
the expiration of their 3 year enlistment contract for the convenience of
the government also retain eligibility entitlements if they completed at
least 30 months of the 3-year obligation.  The character of an eligible
Soldier must have been fully honorable.  Benefits end 10 years from the
date of a Soldier’s last discharge.  Benefits may be extended beyond this
10 year period by the amount of time a former Soldier was prevented from
training during that period because of a disability or because he/she was
held by a foreign government or power.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While it may be unfortunate that the applicant is ineligible for
education benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs his
ineligibility does not provide a sufficiently compelling reason to correct
his records in any way which might permit him to qualify for those
benefits.

2.  The evidence available indicates that the applicant’s discharge was
accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.  The Army
Discharge Review Board decision to upgrade the character of his discharge
to fully honorable does not change the underlying basis for his discharge,
nor show that there was any error or injustice created by the discharge
process.
3.  To be eligible for the MGIB the applicant’s reason for discharge would
have to be changed and/or his creditable service would have to be increased
to at least 30 months.  There is no evidence in available records, or
provided by the applicant which would justify such a correction.

4.  Notwithstanding the fact that there is no basis to change the reason
for discharge or his length of service, such a change would still not
render the applicant eligible for educational benefits because more than 10
years has elapsed since his discharge.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS  __  __JPI ___  __RKS  _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            ____ John N. Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003096877                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040415                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |