MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12466

	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. Ed Clark		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he "would like to receive my benefits."  In support of the application, he attached a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).

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

He was enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 17 June 1973 for a period of 6 years.

On 5 November 1973, while in an active duty for training status, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to obey the lawful order of his commander to be alert and awake at all times when performing duties as a fire/security guard.  

On 16 June 1975 he was honorably discharged from the ARNG and involuntarily ordered to active duty in pay grade E-2 because of unsatisfactory participation.

On 22 August 1975 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.

On 11 September 1975 he was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.

On 17 November 1975 his commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 
13, unsuitability.  The commander stated, in part, "Since your arrival in this unit you have constantly been a disruptive factor.  Your attitude goes beyond that of apathy to an air of almost open hostility to all of your Chain of Command.  Your performance has consistently failed to meet the minimal standards of this unit.  Your lack of motivation, lackadaisical attitude, and failure to improve your performance has made you a grave detriment to your platoon and your contemporaries.  Since much of your behavior is admittedly aimed at an early release from your military contract, I feel that your continued service would do great damage to the United States Army."  The recommendation included sworn statements signed by the applicant's platoon leader and his noncommissioned officer supervisor attesting to the applicant's egregious behavior, failure to respond to counseling, and his uselessness to the unit.

After being counseled by a military lawyer, the applicant waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers, and he declined to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 16 October 1975 he underwent a separation physical examination.  He was found medically qualified for separation.

On 26 November 1975 the commander's recommendation was approved by the convening authority who directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 5 December 1975, 5 months and 19 days after he was ordered to active duty, he was discharged.

On 22 September 1983 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant's general discharge was proper and equitable and unanimously voted to deny the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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 was involuntarily ordered to active duty because of unsatisfactory participation in the ARNG.  He served on active duty for less than 6 months when he was separated because of unsuitability.

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the quality of the applicant's brief period of active duty service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Accordingly, upgrade of his general discharge to honorable is not warranted.

3.  The foregoing is supported by the decision of the ADRB. 

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

JHL_____  AAO____  VBC____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12466/1999017088	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 FEBRUARY 4	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19951205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CHAP 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUITABILITY	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.