APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was told his discharge would be upgraded to an honorable discharge after three years.

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

On 28 February 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Power Generator and Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

On 21 March 1980, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for public intoxication.

The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three occasions for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order.

The applicant received one counseling statement for inappropriate behavior.

On 6 August 1980, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 8 August 1980, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability, apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.  His commander noted the applicant fell below minimum standards of conduct and duty performance.  He had an apathetic attitude and required constant supervision.

On 8 August 1980, the applicant acknowledged that he was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  He waived appearance before a board of officers, personal appearance before such a board and representation by counsel.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 11 August 1980, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be given a general discharge.

On 5 September 1980, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He had completed 1 year, 6 months and 8 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.  At the time, Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military 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.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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