MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 June 1999                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023355

	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. Judy L. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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)

	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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had a personality conflict with his platoon leader. 

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

On 1 October 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B10 (Military Police).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

Between December 1982 and May 1983, the applicant was counseled on seven different occasions for failure to repair, for unsatisfactory duty performance, for traffic violations, for being overweight and for disorderly conduct.  The applicant also received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to pass the Army Physical Readiness Test.  However, this particular record is missing from his file. 

In May 1983, the applicant accepted two nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to repair and for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1.

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings. 

On 23 May 1983, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 2 June 1983, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  On 8 July 1983, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 8 days of creditable active service.  

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. 

On 29 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an 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.  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 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__SAC___  __SLP___  __EJA__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023355	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830708	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.49	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.