MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:            03 December 1998                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10302

	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. Theodore Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 DD Form 214, separation document, be corrected to show completion of his first term of military service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he honorably satisfied his first term of service and that his DD Form 214 is in error because it shows he did not complete his first full term of service.  

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

His records appear incomplete.  However, available records show that he initially enlisted on 3 August 1993 for a period of 3 years.  The expiration of his term of service (ETS) was 2 August 1996.  He completed his initial training in the field artillery career management field, military occupation specialty 13F.

On 3 May 1996, he immediately reenlisted for a period of 5 years and elected a 50% payment of his selective reenlistment bonus.  He had no break in service and at the time of his reenlistment, he had completed 2 years, 8 months and 
29 days of active service.

On 11 February 1997, he was reassigned to another unit for rehabilitative purposes.

On 7 March 1997, he was formally counseled for lying to a senior non commissioned officer (NCO) and failing to be at his appointed place at an appointed time.  A summary of the counseling statement indicated, in effect, that he was having financial difficulties, however, he was not diligent or truthful in his effort to overcome his difficulties nor entirely willing to take advantage of the assistance being provided by his leaders.  His senior NCO also stated that he (the senior NCO) had done everything in his power to provide assistance; that the applicant had not performed a full day of duty in the last 6 weeks; and that he had accumulated enough record of this type behavior to warrant punitive action including separation.  

On 10 March 1997, he was formally counseled for disobeying a lawful order from
a senior NCO.  His records also contain a copy of an Article 15 proceeding for the same offense, however, it is illegible. 

On 12 March 1997, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance and recommended a general discharge.  Accompanying documents indicate that he waived his right to seek legal advice; that he was advised of the impact of this discharge; and that he declined to make a statement in his own behalf.   
On 17 March 1997, his commander was notified by the family advocacy review committee that the child abuse case citing the applicant as the offender, was unresolved and closed.  The review committee stated that the treatment plan had not been completed and recommended that he be administratively separated.

On 24 March 1997, the separation authority approved command’s request for separation and issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

His DD Form 214 shows that he was separated under honorable conditions on 4 April 1997 in accordance with Army regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He had completed 3 years, 8 months and 2 days of creditable service with no lost time.  His DD Form 214 also states that he did not complete his first full term of service.

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.

On 10 July 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for discharge upgrade by unanimous vote.  The ADRB determined that he was properly and equitably discharged based on the particular circumstances of the case and his overall record of service.

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 contention that he honorably satisfied his 1st term of service has no basis when the evidence of record is considered.

2.  The evidence of record clearly indicates that he completed only 2 years, 
8 months and 29 days of his 3 year, first term of enlistment when he reenlisted on 3 May 1996 for a 5 year, second term of service and, apparently, paid 50% of his selective reenlistment bonus.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4.  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 to satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.