MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021408

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		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 led to believe that his general discharge would be upgraded within 6 months from the date of his discharge to honorable.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 6 February 1976 as a water supply specialist.  

Beginning in August 1976, the applicant received several nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of AWOL (11 days), possession of marijuana, failure to be at his appointed place duty, wrongfully appropriate of government property and failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

The applicant’s personnel records show he was confined by civilian authorities from 27 March 1977 to 14 April 1977 (19 days).

On 18 May 1977, the applicant’s was notified by his commander that he was being considered for elimination from the service under the provisions of 
AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 19 May 1977, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s record of disciplinary action.

On 2 June 1977, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 14 June 1977.  He had a total of 1 year, 
3 months and 9 days of creditable service and had 30 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 

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, provided for separation due to inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy and homosexuality.  The regulation requires that separation action will be taken when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not develop 

sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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.

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

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

INW____  EB______  TAP_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021408	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770614	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.