MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11123
				   AR1998012071

	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. Gale Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 records be corrected by changing his        DD Form 214 (Report of Separation), item #24 (character of service) to reflect that he was honorably discharged.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That after he talked to a VA representative about upgrading his DD Form 214, he was advised that all he needed to do was to have the error corrected.

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

On 24 August 1982, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years, in the pay grade of E-3.

On 24 February 1983, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4.

On 8 December 1983, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent from his unit without authority (AWOL) from 16-17 November 1983, and from 21-22 November 1983.  His punishment included forfeiture, extra duty, restriction and reduction to pay grade E-3.

The applicant was counseled on 27 April, 30 November and 30 December 1983, for poor job performance.  

On 4 January 1984, he was given elimination counseling for his poor duty performance, stating that for more than a year he had attempted to resolve the problem with reuniting with his mother, but that attempts at a compassionate reassignment and Inter-theater transfers had failed and that his duty performance had gone down at the same time.  His mind was not on his work; he was frequently late for formations and sometimes hadn’t shown up at all.  He had been counseled by his platoon sergeant, and received an Article 15, for his absences, but there was no improvement in his attention span or his duty performance.

On 16 January 1984, his commanding officer notified him of his intent to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.   

On 24 January 1984, having been advised of his rights by legal counsel, the applicant authenticated a statement in which he indicated he understood the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for unsatisfactory performance; that he understood the ramifications of receiving a general discharge under honorable conditions; requested consulting counsel; and declined the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 16 January 1984, his commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service because of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 13.  The applicant had been concerned with fear for his mother’s life, a resident of Ethiopia, who had not been allowed an exit visa and was unable to receive assistance form the American or German Embassy.  The applicant’s performance dwindled to the point that he was often unaccounted for and had received an Article 15 for being AWOL.  There appeared to be no grounds for disposition of his case other than elimination, because after countless unsuccessful attempts to assist him in relocating closer to his family through Inter theater transfers and a compassionate reassignment, he failed to adapt to the military.

On 1 February 1984, a physical examination and a mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

On 6 February 1984, a bar to reenlistment was approved.

On 7 February 1984, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he be issued a general discharge certificate and placed in the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR).  

On 16 March 1984, he was discharged under the above cited regulation. 
His Report of Separation indicates he had 1 year, 6 months and 22 days of creditable service and 1 day of lost time.

On 23 August 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Ready Reserves, after fulfillment of his service obligation.

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.

2.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  The honorable discharge certificate submitted by the applicant as evidence that there was an error on his DD Form 214, was not issued for the period of service covered by the DD Form 214 in question, it was his discharge certificate issued from the U.S. Army Reserves (USAR), upon completion of his service obligation.

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

__inw___  ____vbc_  ___cjs__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC9811123/AR1998012071	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110.09		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.