RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            14 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004184


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Ann M. Campbell               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Margaret V. Thompson          |     |Member               |

      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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is requesting an upgrade of his
discharge in order to obtain a job in law enforcement or as a firefighter.
He states that he has been a good and productive citizen since his
discharge and is only trying to improve himself as a father.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 27 August 1997.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63J (Chemical Equipment
Repairer) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was
private first class (PFC).

2.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a
disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions.

3.  On 19 October 1998, the applicant’s unit commander notified the
applicant of the intent to process him for separation under the provisions
of paragraph 14-12b Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct
(pattern of misconduct).  The commander cited the applicant’s disciplinary
history, which included his failure to report for duty on several
occasions, dereliction in the performance of his duties and being
disrespectful toward noncommissioned officers (NCOs).  He also cited the
applicant’s arrest for larceny.

4.  On 27 October 1998, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects,
of the rights available to him and of the effects of waiving those rights.


5.  On 20 November 1998, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-
200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct and that he receive a GD.  On
27 December 1998, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
6.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the
date of his separation, 17 December 1998, confirms he held the rank of
private/E-1 on the date of his separation.  It also shows that he completed
a total of 1 year,
3 months and 21 days of active military service.  The separation document
also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Service
Ribbon and Marksman Qualification Badge with Automatic Rifle and Grenade
Bars.

7.  On 23 July 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after
carefully considering the applicant’s case, determined that his discharge
was proper
and equitable and it denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
As a result of administrative remedies not being exhausted until the ADRB
considered his case, notwithstanding the three-year statute of limitations
for filing a claim with this Board, his application to this Board is
considered to have been timely filed.

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, convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  An under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for members separated
under these provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he has been a good citizen and his
request for an upgrade of his discharge to obtain employment in law
enforcement were carefully considered.  However, these factors are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The governing regulation states that while an HD or GD are authorized,
an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated
for misconduct.  In this case, the chain of command did not believe an
UOTHC was warranted.  However, the applicant’s misconduct clearly
diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable
discharge.  Therefore, the
GD he received accurately reflects his overall record of service.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___AMC_  __MVT __  ___JEV _  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 E. Vick_____
                    CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004184                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/04/14                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1998/12/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]