MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 September 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999019177

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman 		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that his rank indicate E-4 instead of E-3.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) is incorrect because he was led to believe that when he went on active duty training his discharge would be upgraded to honorable and he would be promoted to E-4.  Since joining the National Guard, he has learned that his DD Form 214 still shows a general discharge and the rank E-3.  He contends that St. Louis has no records of his active duty training in Fort Drum, New York.  He also contends that after he returned from his active duty training, he received notification that his discharge and rank had been upgraded. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, orders for active duty for training, and an Honorable Discharge Certificate dated 6 December 1989.       

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

The applicant enlisted on 23 November 1983 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed training and was transferred to Korea for duty as a cannon crewman.  He was promoted to E-3 on 1 October 1984.

The applicant’s records indicate that he received nonjudicial punishment on one occasion (no details available).

The applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander based his recommendation on the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance of duties, negative attitude, contempt for military bearing and discipline, and unwillingness to abide by Army regulations or to adapt to the standards of conduct required by the United States Army. 

On 13 March 1985 the applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and submitted a statement on his behalf.  In summary, he stated that he had not been in trouble in 16 months of service and that the chapter packet included only a company level Article 15 and one counseling statement that he received 5 days ago on 8 March 1985.  He contended that he was a good soldier and his record shows that he deserves no worse than an honorable discharge. 

Prior to discharge, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and separation physical examination and was cleared for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  

The applicant’s records contain DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) which indicates his advancement to E-4 was blocked effective 1 February 1985.    
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge, directed the issuance of a general discharge and directed that the applicant serve his remaining obligation in the Individual Ready Reserve.  The applicant was discharged from active duty in the rank of private first class (E-3) on 20 March 1985 and was transferred to the Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training). On 6 December 1989 he was honorably discharged in the rank of specialist four (E-4) from the Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training).   

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.

Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that a DD Form 214 will be prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from the Active Army.  The regulation also states that the active duty grade of rank and pay grade at the time of separation will be entered on the DD Form 214.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  However, on 26 July 1999 the applicant was notified that he had not exhausted all administrative remedies available to him and that he had to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board prior to review by this Board.  However, he failed to respond and it was determined that his case would be considered by this Board.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that his DD Form 214 is incorrect because he was led to believe that when he went on active duty training his discharge would be upgraded to honorable.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He was issued a DD Form 214 at the time of his release from active duty on 20 March 1985.
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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

4.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his rank on his DD Form 214 is incorrect and should be E-4, not E-3.  However, the evidence of record shows the applicant’s advancement to E-4 was blocked effective 1 February 1985 and there is no evidence he was promoted to E-4 prior to his discharge from active duty on 20 March 1985.  Therefore, the applicant’s rank is accurately reflected on his DD Form 214.

5.  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.

6.  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

JMA____  TSK_____  KAN_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019177	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990915	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850320	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory performance	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.	129.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.