RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           11 March 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004101448


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Mae M. Bullock                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he wants to reenter the Army so
that he can have a steady income to support his kids.

3.  The applicant provides a two page self-authored statement in support of
his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on
22 August 1997, the date of his separation.  The application submitted in
this case is dated 21 April 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,
and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (AR 15-185, paragraph 2-8),
effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year
limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of final action by
the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the Board has adopted the
broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the date of
exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is
utilized.

3.  Records show that the applicant enlisted in the Georgia Army National
Guard on 29 December 1993 and served as a member of the Georgia Army
National Guard until he entered active duty on 24 June 1994.  The applicant
served on active duty from 24 June 1994 until he returned the Georgia Army
National Guard on 19 August 1994.  The applicant entered active duty again
on 18 June 1995 and returned to the National Guard on 21 September 1995.
The applicant entered active duty again on 15 November 1996 and served
until he was separated on 22 August 1997.

4.  Records show that the applicant received general counseling on six
occasions during the period 21 February 1997 through 4 June 1997 for
various offenses including tendering checks with insufficient funds and
subsequent arrest by military authorities; providing a false official
statement to military police; unauthorized use of a Government credit card;
being absent without leave; and failure to maintain living quarters to the
appropriate standards.

5.  On 11 July 1997, nonjudical punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 25 May 1997
through 4 June 1997; for misusing a Government American Express Card on 8
February 1997 and for misusing a Government American Express Card on 9
March 1997.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of 7 days pay, 14 days
extra duty, restriction 14 days and reduction in pay grade to private/E-1.

6.  On 4 August 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was being recommended for separation under the provisions of paragraph 14-
12b (Patterns of Misconduct) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty
Enlisted Administrative Separations).

7.  The applicant's unit commander cited the reasons for his recommendation
were that the applicant had received an Article 15 and that the applicant
was counseled numerous times for failure to pay just debts, uttering bad
checks and misuse of a Government American Express card.

8.  On 4 August 1997, the applicant acknowledged that he was advised of the
basis for his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.
The applicant indicated that he was counseled by appropriate counsel and
that he was not entitled to have his case heard by an administrative
separation board.  The applicant also indicated that he did not provide
statements on his own behalf.

9.  On 5 August 1997, the applicant's commander forwarded his
recommendation and his waiver of further rehabilitative efforts for the
applicant to the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment,
10th Aviation Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division for approval.

10.  On 8 August 1997, the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation
Regiment, 10th Aviation Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division forwarded the
recommendation for separation of the applicant to the Commander of the 10th
Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division for approval.

11.  On 14 August 1997, the Commander of the 10th Aviation Brigade, 10th
Mountain Division directed that the applicant be discharged from the United
States Army under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation
635-200, for patterns of misconduct.  The commander further directed that
the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  On 22 August 1997, the applicant was separated from active duty under
the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200, for patterns
of misconduct and furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  On 28 January 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the
applicant's request for a discharge upgrade general under honorable
conditions to honorable.  The ADRB unanimously determined that the
discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly
characterized as general under honorable conditions.

14.  The applicant was notified of the ADRB decision by a letter dated 30
January 2004.

15.  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.
Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly
established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
 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.  Only a general court-martial convening authority
may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an
honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge so that he may reenter the Army and have a steady job to support
his children.

2.  The applicant's record of service included six general counseling
statements for various offenses including tendering checks with
insufficient funds and subsequent arrest by military authorities; providing
a false official statement to military police; unauthorized use of a
Government credit card; being absent without leave; and failure to maintain
living quarters to the appropriate standards.

3. The applicant's record of service also included a nonjudical punishment
for AWOL and for misusing a Government American Express Card on multiple
occasions.

4.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable
discharge.

5.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the type
of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate
considering all of the facts of this case..

6.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all
requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS__  __PHM__  __MMB___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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                 |AR2004010448                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040311                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          | DENY                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |