MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR 1999025019

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, 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:  In effect, that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, since being discharged she has been an active adult leader in the PTA and BSA.  She feels that her discharge should be upgraded to honorable since it was a non-disciplinary type discharge. 

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

She was born on 10 May 1960.  She completed 12 years of formal education.
On 14 April 1981, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  The applicant received a waiver for being 31 pounds over weight.  She was awarded military occupational specialty 95B10 (Military Police).  The highest grade she achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 3 August 1983, the applicant was enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program because she did not meet the weight and body fat standards of the Army.

In October 1983, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  The bar to reenlist was based on the applicant’s failing to meet the Army weight and body fat standards.  Between October and December 1983, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for being overweight.

On 16 December 1983, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to her.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.

On 23 January 1984, a mental and physical evaluation found the applicant
qualified for separation.

On 26 January 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 2 February 1984, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-4 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD.  She completed 2 years, 9 months and 19 days of creditable active service.  She was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Sharpshooter (Rifle-M16A1), 2nd Class (Hand Grenade) and Expert (Pistol .45 Caliber).

Army Regulation 635-200, set forth the basic authority for 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 would separate a member when, in the commander’s judgment, it was clearly established that the member would 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The narrative reason for separation of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation 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

__mkp___  __bje___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025019	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/02/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840202	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.