MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            21 January 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-13098
                                              AR1998012361

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karen J. Newsome		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 to an honorable discharge for satisfactory performance.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes that anything less than an honorable discharge for satisfactory performance is an injustice.  He further states that his personnel records contain letters written by other soldiers showing good accomendations of his performance and that this should be sufficient to upgrade his discharge.

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

The applicant enlisted on 6 February 1980 for a period of 3 years and training as a multi-channel communications equipment operator.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 September 1981.  On 7 January 1982 he was transferred to Germany.

On 23 March 1982 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty and for failure to perform his assigned duties as charge of quarters runner.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 3 months), and 14 days of extra duty.  On 5 April 1982 the suspended portion of his punishment was vacated.

On 17 May 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty, for two specifications of using disrespectful language towards an NCO, and three specifications of disobeying lawful orders from NCOs.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (suspended for 3 months).

The applicant was subsequently transferred to another company in the battalion as a rehabilitative transfer.

On 19 August 1982 NJP was again imposed against the applicant for assaulting a fellow soldier and inflicting grievous bodily harm on him and for wrongfully communicating a threat to kill the soldier.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2. A forfeiture of pay, and correctional confinement for 7 days.

On 8 November 1982 was involved in a serious verbal altercation with two NCOs and received formal counseling by his commander.

On 30 November 1982 the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that NJP had been imposed the applicant on four occasions and that he had failed to respond to numerous counseling sessions and all rehabilitative attempts. 

The applicant waived consideration of his case and a personal appearance before a board of officers and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he should not be chaptered out of the Army because he had strived to excel during his tour of duty at Fort Bragg, that he was not in any trouble while at Fort Bragg, and that he had taken correspondence courses to give him a better understanding of his equipment.

On 16 December 1982 the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which determined that he was mentally responsible to participate in separation proceedings.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 3 January 1983 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 January 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 2 years, 11 months, and 9 days of total active service. 

A review of the applicant’s military records failed to reveal any favorable letters of commendation or awards for his service or performance of duty.

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 his command 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

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

___kn___  __jpi ____  __fe ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-13098/AR1998012361	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/01/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH13  	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.4900		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.