MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

           BOARD DATE:          15 March 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999027664

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 the character of his service be changed from a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions, to a fully honorable discharge and that the narrative reason be changed to secretarial authority.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes his discharge is too harsh and the reason is incorrect.  He submits his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request.

COUNSEL STATES:  That the applicant had no lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL) nor did he have any nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Even though he did receive a special court-martial, it was for a minor offense and not for a pattern of misconduct.

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

That prior to the enlistment under review, he had an honorable period of service in the Regular Army (RA) from 27 September 1976-26 September 1979.  After a 3 month break in service, he reenlisted in the RA for 4 years on 8 January 1980, in his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 67V (Observation/Scout Helicopter).

On 3 September 1980, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of willfully disobeying a lawful order on 16 April 1980, and of being disrespectful to a superior officer on 25 July 1980.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade 
E-4 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 1 month and 
30 days extra duty and restriction.

On 9 July 1980, his commander officially notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for apathy, unsuitability. 

On 24 July 1980, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent to separate him.  He consulted with legal counsel concerning the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers.

On 9 September 1980, the applicant appeared before the board of officers with counsel.  He was advised of the specific evidence and allegations against him.  He was given an opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf, to testify in person, or to present a written statement.  He testified before the board of officers.  He stated that he had threatened no one, in fact, he himself had been threatened.  He also stated that he wanted to stay in the Army.  

The direct examination of witnesses that appeared before the board revealed that the applicant had been counseled for his inability to get along with his superiors due to his inability to accept authority.  Direct examination further revealed that the applicant’s platoon leader requested that he not be allowed to go to the range because it had been reported that he had made threats to fire his weapon at the people around him.  He had also threatened to do bodily harm to a chief warrant officer and he had made unauthorized long distance calls on a government phone.  Even though he was a good worker, his work habits were sporadic because his attitude affected his work.

On 9 September 1980, the board of officers, after carefully considering the evidence of record, concluded that rehabilitation was not deemed possible.  The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability with a GD. 

On 29 September 1980, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD.  On 16 October 1980, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability-apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively with a GD.  He had completed 9 months and 9 days of creditable active military service on the enlistment under review and he had completed 3 years of prior active service.  He had received the Good Conduct Medal during his prior enlistment.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability 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, due to inaptitude, personality disorder or apathy.  A general or an honorable discharge can be awarded as appropriate.

On 22 April 1982, 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.  Both the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service during the period of service under review.

3.	Even though the applicant received only one court-martial conviction, 
testimony at the board of officers hearing showed that he had a history of incidents which could have resulted in NJP or court-martial action.  Further, his attitude was such that his potential for further service was limited.

4.  The Board concluded that the quality of the applicant’s service was not determined to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge he is requesting.

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

__rvo___  __mkp___  __vbc   __  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027664	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000315	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19801016	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200,  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A78.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.