RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 APRIL 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004101453


      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. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Frank C. Jones II             |     |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 that his general discharge be upgraded to fully
honorable.

2.  The applicant makes no statement.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.  He did,
however, include a copy of his college payment plan and a copy of an essay
that he submitted as part of his college admission process.  These
documents were included as part of his application to the Army Discharge
Review Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 28 June 1999.  He was just shy of his 19th birthday at the
time of enlistment and had completed 12 years of formal education.

2.  The applicant successfully completed training and was ultimately
assigned to a support unit in Hawaii as a motor transport operator.

3.  In January 2001 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice for three counts of failing to be at his
appointed place of duty and being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned
officer.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2.

4.  In June 2001 the applicant was, once again, promoted to pay grade E-3.
In spite of the promotion, commencing in May 2001 the applicant began
receiving counseling statements regarding his attitude and his continued
failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  The counseling statements
continued until November 2001 when his commander notified the applicant
that he (the commander) was initiating actions to administratively separate
the applicant from active duty for a pattern of misconduct under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14.

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation,
including that his commander was recommending that he receive a general
discharge.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his attendant
rights.

6.  The recommendation was approved and on 18 December 2001 the applicant
was discharged.  He was issued a general discharge certificate.



7.  Subsequent to the applicant's separation, he was apparently admitted to
Ohio Technical College in Cleveland, Ohio.  The essay, submitted as part of
his application process recounts his military service and notes that after
being assigned to Hawaii he "endured several difficulties that molded" him
into a "better soldier and person."  He states that he was a natural leader
and that he had "accumulated several awards."  He made no mention of the
fact that he was issued a general discharge certificate, or that he was
discharged administratively for patterns of misconduct.

8.  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, and convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  Generally a discharge under other than
honorable conditions is appropriate for a soldier discharged under this
chapter.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

10.  In January 2004 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the
applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.  His successful completion of training
and promotion to pay grade E-3, clearly indicates that the applicant was
capable of honorable service.

2.  The fact that the applicant may now have come to realize the
consequence of his less than fully honorable discharge, and that he has
been admitted to college, has been noted.  However, neither factor
outweighs the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does
not, in this case, provide an adequate basis upon which to grant relief as
a matter of equity.

3.  The applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations.  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.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JCH __  __LDS __  __FCJ___  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.





            _____James C. Hise______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101453                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040422                                |
|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.                      |                                        |