APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general under honorable conditions discharge be changed to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his ability to serve was impaired by youth, alcohol use, racial discrimination and personal problems; that his discharge was based on many, but minor, offenses; and that he was not properly counseled.

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

He was born on 7 December 1960.  On 12 February 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  
The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three separate occasions for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (once) and sleeping on guard duty (twice).

On 26 June 1979, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  The applicant makes no mention on his Report of Medical History of any drug or alcohol problem.

On 13 July 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability, apathy.  He noted the applicant had been continuously counseled on his performance and lack of motivation, failure to follow instructions and being apathetic about becoming a productive soldier.

On 16 July 1979, 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 20 July 1979, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be given a general discharge.

On 30 July 1979, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He had completed          5 months and 19 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.  He had the right to present his case before a board of officers and waived this right.

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