MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 he be reinstated on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge is a lie.  He contends that it is totally out of context for a soldier who was promoted to pay grade E-4 and reenlisted.  He contends that if what is implied on his 
DD Form 214 was true, he would be in jail now.  However, he has never been sentenced to serve any time in jail.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 June 1978, was awarded the occupational specialty of construction equipment repairman, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.  He reenlisted on 31 March 1982 for 4 years.

On 29 June 1982 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for dereliction of duty in that he failed to use a ground guide while moving a crane out of a maintenance shop, resulting in damage to the crane and the entrance to the shop; for dereliction of duty in that he improperly dropped the blade of a scraper on the shop floor; and for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days of extra duty (suspended) and a reduction to pay grade E-3.  The suspension of the two punishments was later vacated and those punishments imposed.

On 30 August 1982 the applicant again accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

On 31 August 1982 the applicant’s commander forwarded a recommendation to discharge him due to unsuitability, apathy.  In that recommendation his commander stated that “ . . .[the applicant] is the most belligerent and apathetic soldier assigned to this unit.  His attitude is extremely poor and he requires constant supervision . . . He has refused to obey orders of his supervisors and has been disrespectful to superior noncommissioned officers . . . [he] is extremely immature and given to temper tantrums.  After being corrected he normally sulks and has even deliberately abused engineer equipment . . . he requires almost constant attention from an NCO or he does nothing.  Any further efforts at rehabilitation would be a total waste of time and effort.”

In conjunction with that recommendation the applicant was advised of his rights and opted to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In that statement he points out that he had not gotten into any trouble before his assignment to his unit and that he was entitled by Army regulation to a rehabilitative transfer.  He continued that his problems were a result of a personality conflict between him and other individuals and he admitted that he was part of the problem.
Notwithstanding the applicant’s request, his commander’s recommendation was approved and he was discharged under honorable conditions (General Discharge Certificate) on 6 October 1982 for unsuitability, apathy, ineffective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders would separate a member under that chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  This chapter requires that a soldier be given at least one rehabilitative transfer to a new unit.  However, the rehabilitative transfer could be waived if to do so would either create serious disciplinary problems or hazard to the military mission or the individual himself, or, be inappropriate because the individual is obviously resisting all rehabilitation attempts or that rehabilitation would not produce the quality soldier desired by the Army.

On 1 October 1986 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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

1.  The applicant’s conduct at the time of his discharge warranted a discharge for unsuitability.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he didn’t have any problems in the military before he was assigned to his final unit is substantiated by his record.  However, that does not excuse his conduct or lack of performance.

3.  The applicant himself stated in his letter to the discharge authority that he was having personality conflicts and he was part of the problem.  

4.  Given the applicant’s record, it is understandable that the convening authority did not want to give the applicant a rehabilitative transfer.  He required constant supervision and had a track record of damaging Government property when upset.  To give the applicant to another commander would be giving that commander an unnecessary burden.

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

_SAC____  _FKM __  _MDM___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC9809876/AR1999018391	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19821006	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.