MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012206

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant entered active duty on 2 July 1987 as a chemical equipment repairman.

In March 1989, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements and nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of failure to be at his appointed place of duty, failure to report to his appointed place of duty, failure to follow instructions, failure to report, failure to maintain sufficient funds, disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful order and 
failure to maintain standards.

On 10 December 1990, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 15 October 1990, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 25 October 1990
and was found qualified for separation.

On 27 December 1990, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s numerous counseling statements and disciplinary actions against him, and his lack of motivation to perform his assigned duties.

On 27 December 1990, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 8 January 1991.  He had total of 3 years, 
6 months, and 7 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 30 October 1998.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 9 April 1999.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under the chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and or become a satisfactory soldier.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

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 therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

INW____  EB______  TAP_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012206C	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19910108	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.