MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 January 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024587

	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.

	Ms. Antoinette E. Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was accused of beginning an altercation by striking his immediate supervisor, a noncommissioned officer (NCO), with his
M-16 rifle.  He stresses that he raised his M-16 rifle at a “butt stroke” position, but it did not strike the NCO.  He further states that he received a summary court-martial and was sentenced to 30 days of hard labor.  Thereafter, he received a discharge.  He emphasizes that his intent has been to be return to active duty, but has not been allowed.  Since his discharge his life has changed considerably and therefore he believes his discharge should now be upgraded to honorable.  He provides two letters of reference from the Veterans Affairs Division in Monroe, Michigan, in support his of accomplishments.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 31 July 1980.  He completed both his basic combat training and his advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16S10 (MANPADS Crewman) at Fort Polk, Louisiana.  

On 18 March 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to
go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment
included reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 90 days), forfeiture of
$100.00 and 14 days restriction.  The suspended reduction was vacated
on an unknown date in April or May 1981.

On 25 June 1981, the applicant accepted NJP for behaving disrespectfully 
towards to superior non-commissioned officer.  His punishment included forfeiture of $ 200.00 and extra duty.

On 26 August 1981, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $110.00 and 7 days of correctional custody.

He was transferred to Germany on 19 December 1981.  On 6 May 1983, while still in Germany, he was convicted by a summary court-martial for being disrespectful in language towards a senior NCO and assault on an NCO.
He was sentenced to forfeiture of $191.00, reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.  On 19 May 1983, he was transferred to serve his confinement at the US Army Correctional Activity (USACA), Fort Riley, Kansas as a trainee.  On 23 May 1983, his sentence was deferred and he was placed in a non-confined status.  

On 27 June 1983, his commanding officer officially notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  He was advised of his rights.

On 6 July 1983, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commanding officer’s intent to separate him.  He consulted with legal counsel concerning the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 12 July 1983, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD for unsatisfactory performance.  In addition, the applicant would be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

On 15 July 1983, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD and was transferred to the IRR.  He had completed 2 years, 10 months and 29 days of creditable active service during the enlistment under review and had 14 days of lost time.

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.

There is no record that he ever submitted a request for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

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 discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant has provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that his service mitigated unsatisfactory conduct and performance duty.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The Board acknowledges the applicant’s letter and other documents with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his efforts.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

5.  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             SK            EJA             DENY APPLICATION

					Karl F. Schneider
					Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024587	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.