MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  03 December 1998                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11895

	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. David H.  Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was immature while in the military and goofed around a lot. That eventually the military gave him an option of getting out and he took it.

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

He enlisted on 10 June 1980 at the age of 18 for a period of 4 years.  After training, he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.  In March 1982 he was reassigned overseas to Greece.

On 27 January 1982, while at Fort Carson, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for 2 days AWOL.

While stationed in Greece, he received two more Article 15 punishments:  on 
10 January 1983 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty, and on 
15 June 1983 for four specifications of breaking restriction.

On 3 August 1983 the applicant was tried and found guilty by summary court-martial for two specifications of breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to 
30 days confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of two-thirds of 1 month’s pay.

On 11 August 1983 the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  On 22 August 1983 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

On 30 October 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

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

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was immature while in the military is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 21 years of age at the time he was discharged.

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.