APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he never had any disciplinary actions greater than one company grade Article 15 taken against him, yet he was discharged for misconduct.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 October 1992 for 4 years.

On 3 August 1995, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being disrespectful towards a superior non-commissioned officer.  His imposed punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3., suspended.  The suspension was later vacated because of another act of disrespect towards a non-commissioned officer.

The applicant was counseled on seven different occasions for infractions such as indebtedness, bad checks, apathetic behavior, domestic assault, failure to repair and failure to follow instructions.

On 9 August 1995, the applicant received a local bar to reenlistment.  The bar cited his repeated acts of misconduct.

The separation physical and  mental status examination are not available.

On 23 October 1995, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  

The applicant waived consulting counsel, waived consideration of his case by an administrative board, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 31 October 1995, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be given a general discharge.

On 29 November 1995, he was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 24 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier 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.  He waived his right to consideration of his case by an administrative board.  His record of disciplinary action and counselings does not warrant a characterization of fully honorable.

3.  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