MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 July 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023353

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Charles H. Loundermon		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he never should have served in the Army because, while he was still in the delayed entry program (DEP) of the Army Reserve, he was accepted into Air Force ROTC and should have been released from his contract.  His unit had no leadership or direction and he became discouraged and depressed.  The senior NCO just made an example of him and he just wanted out of the Army.  He never received counseling on the effects of a general discharge.  His pre and post service conduct has been honorable.  He submits numerous character reference letters in support of his application.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel offered no contentions.

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

He enlisted under the training of choice option as a helicopter repairer on 31 December 1976 with a report date of 1 July 1977.  On his enlistment documents he states that he completed Air Force Junior ROTC and was a member of the Civil Air Patrol.

He entered active duty on 1 July 1977 and completed training as a helicopter repairer.  He was assigned to a unit on 25 November 1977 as a helicopter repairer.  In February 1978 he began receiving counseling statements for absence from his place of duty, failure to obey orders, and failure to follow instructions.

On 19 April 1978 he was absent from his place of duty and was punished under Article 15, UCMJ.  On 23 June 1978 he was again absent from his place of duty and on 12 July 1978 he failed to obey a lawful order and was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ.  The approved punishment included 30 days of training at the Correctional Custody Facility (CCF).

On 16 July 1978 the MP’s were called when the applicant was found damaging government property with a hunting knife.  He continued to receive counseling statements while in the CCF for disrespect, failure to follow instructions, and poor attitude.  There were several references in the counseling statements that he wanted out of the Army.

On 14 September 1978 the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent to recommend him for separation based on his defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively.  After consulting with counsel he waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers and to submit statements on his behalf.  He also acknowledged that he understood the effects of a general discharge.

On 28 September 1978 the separation authority approved the request and directed issuance of a general discharge.  The separation authority also waived the rehabilitation requirements because of his serious disciplinary problems.  On 6 October 1978 the applicant was separated in grade E-1 under authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-4c.  He had 1 year, 3 months, and 6 days creditable service and no lost time.

On 9 April 1987 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.  In their decision it was noted that his pre-service conduct provided no extenuation or mitigation of his in-service conduct.

The numerous character reference letters provided with the application speak of the applicant’s high moral character, responsible and dedicated, wanting to improve himself, and a genuine interest in his work.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further 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 indiscipline while on active duty is well documented.  The 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 and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

3.  While the Board is empathetic to the applicant’s personal problems and the character reference letters attest to his good pre and post service conduct, neither are sufficiently mitigating of his service conduct to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

__chl___  __slp___  __clg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023353	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990729	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19781006	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A43.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.