MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            29 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022148

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD) and that the reason be changed from “Unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively” to something less negative.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes he has an illness related to his military service; that his post-service conduct has been good and he has not ended up in prison; that he wants to be able to go to the USO; that he wants to buy a home.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 27 February 1980.  Trained as a cavalry scout, he was sent to Germany where he established a poor disciplinary record.  He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 30 April 1980 for dereliction of duty; on 10 March 1981 for being absent from his place of duty; and on 20 April 1981for dereliction of duty.

On 23 March 1982, he was reassigned to the 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.  He continued his poor conduct, receiving NJP on 18 June 1982 for being absent from his place of duty.  He also received negative counseling statements regarding his duty performance and attitude.  In July 1982, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for separation for unsuitability under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200.  He acknowledged notification and, after consulting with legal counsel who explained the separation process and the applicant’s rights, did not submit any statements in his own behalf.

On 30 July 1982, the approving authority approved the applicant’s separation for unsuitability under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 and directed a GD.  The applicant was separated with a GD on 10 August 1982.  He had 2 years, 5 months, and 14 days of creditable service and no lost time.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, listed his narrative reason for separation as “Unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.”

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-4 provided for separation for unsuitability, which included apathy, defective attitude, or inability to adjust to military life.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, a GD was normally considered appropriate.

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 demonstrated that he was unsuited for military service through his poor disciplinary record and the numerous negative counseling statements concerning his inability to adapt to Army rules and regulations.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his accomplishments since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of assisting the applicant gain entry into service organizations or to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs programs.

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

__GDP__  __CLG__  __CJP___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022148	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991229	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820810	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.