RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010782


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |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 that his general discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that while he was in the Army, he was in need of
medical assistance for depression and that he was not offered help at the
time that he requested to be discharged.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 13 October 1987, he enlisted in the Army in Detroit, Michigan, for 3
years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as
a tactical communications center operator.  Upon completion of his
training, he was transferred to Germany.

2.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 13 April 1988 and to the pay
grade of E-3 on 1 November 1988.

3.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 1 May 1989,
for failure to obey a lawful order; being disrespectful in language toward
a noncommissioned officer (NCO); and communicating a threat to kill an NCO.
 His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a
forfeiture of $182.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

4.  On 14 August 1989, NJP was imposed against him for striking an
individual in his face with a closed fist; striking a female soldier in her
face with the back of his hand; and drunk and disorderly conduct.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture
of pay in the amount of $163.00 and 14 days of extra duty.

5.  On 5 September 1989, the applicant was counseled regarding his
misconduct.  During the counseling he was informed that he was being
considered for elimination from the military based on his continuous
offenses of misconduct.  He was told that within the last 6 months, he had
committed approximately eight offenses all of which were punishable under
the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.  He was also told that if he was
related to any incident

within the next 60 days, the necessary paperwork would be submitted for his
elimination from the service.  He was told that the counseling was also to
serve a notice that he was being barred from reenlistment because of his
continuous misconduct.  The applicant responded to the counseling by
stating that he would not be involved in any trouble or misconduct for the
remainder of his time in the military and that he would continue good
soldiering.  He concluded by stating that all he asked was to be treated
fairly and not looked at for his past actions.

6.  On 13 October 1989, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 14, due to misconduct.  The commander cited his being disrespectful
to an NCO; disobeying a lawful order; communicating a threat; and twice
committing assault and battery as a basis for the recommendation for
discharge. He acknowledged receipt of the notification on13 October 1989
and he waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 24 October 1989
and the attending official opined that his behavior was normal; he was
fully alert and oriented; his mood was unremarkable; this thought process
and content was clear and normal; his memory was good; and he had the
mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
25 October 1989.  Accordingly, on 6 November 1989, the applicant was
discharged under honorable conditions (general), under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on misconduct-commission of a
serious offense.  He had completed 2 years and 24 days of net active
service.

9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an
upgrade his discharge.  On 30 April 2003, the ADRB denied the applicant’s
request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge
was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized
as under honorable conditions.

10.  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.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, there is no
evidence in the available record nor has the applicant submitted any
evidence to substantiate his contention that he was suffering from
depression and in need of medical assistance while he was in the Army.  He
underwent a mental status evaluation prior to his separation and according
to the available medical records, there is no indication that he had any
mental or medical problems, which caused him to commit his acts of
misconduct.

4.  He was disrespectful to an NCO; he disobeyed a lawful order; he
communicated a threat; and he assaulted two people.  Considering the nature
of his offense, it does not appear that his general discharge is too harsh.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sk____  __bje___  __rtd___  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.




                                        Stanley Kelley
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010782                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19891106                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 14                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  626  |144.6000/MISCONDUCT                     |
|2.  642                 |144.6115/SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE         |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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