MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            17 June 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-07957

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Curtis W. Barbee, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms.	Karen L. Wolff		Member	
	Mr.	Edward Williamson		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs.	Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

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

	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:  In effect, that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he lost his GI Bill benefits; that he did not deserve a GD; and that his discharge should be upgraded.

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

On 12 November 1991 he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years, training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman), and the Montgomery GI Bill.  At the time of his enlistment he was 20 years old and had graduated from high school.

He completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of OSUT he was awarded MOS 11M and assigned to Germany.

On 1 February 1993 he was promoted to the rank of private first class/E-3.

Between 30 May 1992 and 23 September 1993 the applicant was counseled for the following misconduct:  missing movement, twice missing formation, lost meal card/ration card; and disobeying a lawful order from a first lieutenant (1LT).

On 10 October 1993 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for failing to obey the order of a superior commissioned officer (1LT).  His punishment consisted of a reduction in rank to private/E-2 (suspended); a forfeiture of $213.00 (suspended) and 14 days restriction and extra duty.  

On 12 January 1994 he was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-4.

Between 24 January and 30 March 1994 the applicant was counseled for the following acts of misconduct:  disobeying a lawful order from his commander; disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO); and being disrespectful to an NCO.

On 24 April 1994 a report of mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for administrative separation.

On 23 May 1994 the applicant’s defense counsel submitted a memorandum to the applicant’s commander raising issues with the chapter 13 separation package provided to the applicant.  The issues included problems with the notification not being read to the applicant prior to his appointment with defense counsel, the mental status evaluation, the unsigned chapter documents, and the applicant’s medical condition.  The commander responded that any perception of problems with the chapter 13 had been corrected, that he had read the applicant the notification, that the mental evaluation was proper, and that the applicant was not being considered for a medical discharge.  On 6 June 1994 the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted legal counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 13 June 1994 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a GD and declined to transfer the applicant to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  Accordingly, on 1 July 1994 he was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 21 days of active military service.

On 30 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 this 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.  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.

2.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, the record does not support them, and no evidence to support them have been submitted by the applicant that he did not deserve to be discharged and loose his GI Bill benefits.

3.  To be eligible for education benefits the applicant was required to serve a minimum of 36 months of his enlistment commitment and receive an honorable discharge.  The applicant authenticated a statement at the time of his enlistment that indicated he understood the aforementioned requirements.

4.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

5.  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

__cwb___  ___klw__  ___ew___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director