MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           2 March 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025517

	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. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman 		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, upgrade of his general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions.  Further, he requests correction of his of his DD Form 2l4 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the correct overseas service and the correct length of active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has been denied a claim for service connected medical problems with the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA), and that he was told his DD Form 2l4 is incorrect.  

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

He had one prior period of honorable service from 9 January 1976 through 
14 August 1978.  On that date he was honorably discharged and reenlisted on 
15 August 1978 for his same duty position.  The highest rank he attained during his first enlistment was specialist, pay grade E-4, and his military occupational specialty (MOS) was MOS 62F (Rough Terrain Forklift Operator).  He served in Korea from 16 December 1977 through 14 August 1978 on his first enlistment. 

At the time of his reenlistment, he was issued a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) which covered his first period of service.  He was credited with 2 years, 7 months and 9 days active service.  Further, he was credited with 7 months and 9 days overseas service (16 December 1977 through 
14 August 1978).

He continued to serve in Korea for an addition 3 months and 22 days and then was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  In March 1980, he was reassigned back to Korea. 

 During his second tour in Korea, he received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s).  The first was on 9 September 1980 for assault on another soldier.  His punishment included a 3-month suspended reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $100 pay, $50 of which was suspended for 3 months, and l4 days extra duty.  His appeal of the punishment was denied.  

His second NJP was imposed on 31 December 1980 for violation of a lawful general regulation by excess purchase (apparently in the Post Exchange System) during the month of August 1980-$334 in purchases versus 
$215 authorized.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $50, and l4 days extra duty/restriction.  He did not appeal the punishment.  He was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in March 1981.  

He was again advanced to pay grade E-4 on 1 September 1981.  On 20 January 1982, he received NJP at Fort Bragg for disrespectful language to a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $100 pay and l4 days extra duty, but all punishments were suspended for 30 days.  He did not appeal the punishment.  

On 5 March 1982, he was reassigned back to Korea and then was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas, on 5 April 1983.  He had no recorded indisciplines while in Korea during this period.

On 10 August 1983, he received an official Letter of Reprimand from his company commander at Fort Hood for cursing and showing a lack of professionalism during a physical training run on that date.  A notation on the letter indicates that he was to receive 2 days extra training from his first sergeant. 

On 4 November 1983, a summarized NJP was administered for twice behaving with disrespect to a commissioned officer on two different occasions on
2 November 1983.  His punishment included extra duty at the direction of the first sergeant for 14 days and 7 days restriction to the unit area.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On 21 November 1983, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he was initiating discharge proceedings under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  His four NJP actions and Letter of Reprimand were cited as the basis.  He was advised of his rights and that the least characterization of service he could receive was a GD, under honorable conditions.

On an unknown date, he consulted with legal counsel, stated that he understood the nature of the discharge action, waived a hearing by and a personal appearance before a board of officers, did not make a statement in his own behalf (although there is a handwritten statement with the separation packet in which he stated that he would not contest the separation action and just wanted to be discharged), and further representation by counsel.

On 5 January 1984, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts, approved the discharge for unsatisfactory performance, with a GD, and directed that he not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

On 11 January 1984, the applicant was discharged with a GD, under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  His awards and decorations included the Good Conduct Medal (w/two bronze service loops), The Army Service Ribbon, the Oversea Service Ribbon, with the numeral 2, and several marksmen badges.   

On his DD Form 2l4 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), issued on 11 January 1984, in item 12a (Date Entered AD (active duty) This Period) the entry is 15 August 1978; in item 12b (Separation Date This Period) the discharge date of 11 January 1984 is shown; in item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) the entry is shown as 5 years, 4 months and 27 days.  In item 12d (Total Prior Active Service) the entry is shown as 2 years, 7 months and 9 days.  In item 12f (Foreign Service) the entry 2 years, 3 months and 12 days is shown.  He had no lost time during this enlistment.   

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.  Either a GD, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge in meritorious case, may be granted.  

Army Regulation 635-5 provides the policy and guidance for the issuance of a DD Form 2l4.  Prior to 1978, DD Forms 2l4 would be issued at the completion of each period of active service, i.e. at the end of each period of enlistment, and all appropriate entries for service computation, awards, decorations, schooling and the like would be covered on that document.  Since that time, a consolidated DD Form 2l4 is prepared covering the entire period of active duty, no matter how many reenlistments the report covers.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever made application to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board’s 
15 years statute of limitations.  

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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

4.  The applicant’s records indicate that two DD Forms 2l4 were issued.  The first report covered his first period of service from 9 January 1976 thru 14 August 1978.  He had 2 years, 7 months and 9 days active service and he served for 
7 months and 29 days overseas.  These entries are properly recorded on his DD Form 2l4 issued on l4 August l978.

5.  His second DD Form 2l4 covered his period of service from 15 August 
1978 through 11 January 1984.  This was for a period of 5 years, 4 months and 27 days.  In addition, item 12d of the form shows that he had 2 years, 7 months and 9 days prior active service.  

6.  Further, the applicant was credited with an additional 2 years, 3 months and 12 days overseas service, which, when combined with his prior DD Form 2l4, shows that he had served a total of 2 years, 11 months and 11 days overseas.  

7.  In view of the foregoing three paragraphs, there is no indication of any errors or injustice in the preparation of his separation documents, particularly his DD Forms 2l4.  

8.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits, to include medical  benefits does not fall within the purview of this Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should continue to work with his local DVA office on his problems.  He should provide a copy of both his DD Forms 2l4 to that office for processing his claim.  

9.  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

___esc__  ___sk___  __kan____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025517	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000302	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840111	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	110.00	
3.	A01.13	
4.	A92.19	
5.	A92.17	
6.	A92.23