MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:              24 June 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AC98-08211

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	Karen J. Newsome		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Mr.	James P. Huber		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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:  In effect, that his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was experiencing marital problems and that his wife’s inaction with the commander on these problems was the cause of his receiving a GD.

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

On 1 October 1993 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 20.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewman), and remained at Fort Sill for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record indicates the highest grade he held on active duty was private/E-2 and contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does include a history of disciplinary infractions including acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.

On 6 May 1994 the applicant accepted an NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 14 April 1994.  His punishment for this offense was 14 days of extra duty.

On 6 May 1994 the applicant accepted his second NJP for being derelict in the performance of his duty on 6 September 1994 and for failing to obey a lawful order on 1 September 1994.  The resultant punishment included a reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $194.00 (suspended); and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

The applicant’s record also documents that he was formally counseled on nine separate occasions, between March and June of 1994, for the following disciplinary infractions:  multiple incidents of failure to repair; failure to follow instructions; bad checks; and spousal abuse.

On 23 October 1994 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of the intent to initiate action for his separation, under the provisions of chapter 13, 
AR 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander cited the reason for his action as the applicant’s repeated failure to follow instructions and disobeying orders.  He further commented that the applicant did not demonstrate the ability or willingness to adhere to the standards required by the U.S. Army and recommended he receive a GD.

On 27 October 1994 the applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement the applicant cited marital problems which got out of control as a mitigating factor and requested an HD.

The appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD.  Accordingly, on 4 November 1994 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 9 days of the period of service under review, and 1 year, 1 month, and 4 days of active military service.

On 5 May 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

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 productive soldier.

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

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his marital problems were responsible for his discharge.  However,  after a careful examination of the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant , the Board found no factors sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge received.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service. 

3.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director