MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028243

	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. Carl W. S. Chun
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn 		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That circumstances were not taken into consideration; that the panel erred without prejudice.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s discharge is too harsh.  The applicant did not receive any nonjudicial punishment, courts-martial, or any lost time due to AWOL.

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

He enlisted on 28 January 1987 and, after training, was assigned to Germany. Prior to completion of his overseas tour, the applicant was medically evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC in August 1988.  After treatment, he was reassigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas in October 1988.

On 20 October 1989, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for two specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and failure to pay a just debt.

During the period October 1989 through January 1990, the applicant received 
30 formal counseling statements concerning failure to report to duty, disrespect, disobeying orders, habitual lateness, indebtedness and dishonored checks.

On 12 February 1990, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 28 February 1990 with 3 years, 1 month and 
1 day of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Chapter 13, 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; 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.

On 27 October 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for 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.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  Counsel’s contention that the applicant never received nonjudicial punishment is rejected.  The evidence of record clearly shows that he was administered NJP on 20 October 1989.

3.  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.

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

__slp___  __lem____  __aao___  DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028243	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000608	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900228	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.