MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            1 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999029107

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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, under honorable conditions characterization of service be upgraded to honorable, and that a local Certificate of Achievement (CoA) he earned be added to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it based on an isolated incident and it was improper because of the severe family problems he was experiencing at the time.  The applicant goes on to indicate that his discharge was too harsh and was not in line with what other soldiers with similar records received.  Finally, he indicates that a CoA he earned was not included on his DD Form 214.

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

On 21 May 1982, at Fort Knox, Kentucky the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  At the time of his reenlistment he had attained the rank of specialist/E-4, held a military occupational specialty of 45N (Tank Turret Repairman), and had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 12 days of active military service.  

During his first enlistment, on 23 October 1981, the applicant received a 
544th Maintenance Battalion Certificate of Achievement for meritorious service during the period September 1979 to 23 October 1981.  

The applicant’s service record for the enlistment under review contains no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, there is an extensive disciplinary history which includes that applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, and a local bar to reenlistment.

On 21 October 1982, the applicant accepted NJP for two specifications of AWOL: the first period from 27 to 29 September 1982; and the second period from 5 to 6 October 1982.  His punishment for these offenses included a reduction in rank to private/E-2; a forfeiture of $321.00 per month for 2 months; and 45 days of extra duty.  

On 1 November 1982, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a bar to reenlistment certificate (DA Form 4126-R) on the applicant.  The unit commander cited the following as factual and relevant indicators of the applicant’s unsuitability and untrainability:  the applicant’s comment to the battalion commander that he did not wish to stay in the Army; his non-motivated attitude towards his work; and his statement that he was not sorry he went AWOL and would repeat this action in the future.  On 1 November 1982, the appropriate authority approved the imposition of this bar action.

On 12 January 1983, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of the intent to process him for separation, under the provisions of Chapter 13, 
Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander cited the applicant’s inability to separate his family life and problems from his military duties; his unsatisfactory performance; and his apathetic attitude as the basis for taking the action.  He further advised the applicant of the basis for the separation action, its effect on him, and of the rights available to him in connection with the action.  

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge recommendation and completed his statement of rights.  In this statement he indicated that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  He completed his election of rights by waiving his right to consulting counsel and he elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own behalf.  

On 25 January 1983, the appropriate authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed that he be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve and that his service be characterized as general, under honorable conditions.  

Accordingly, on 7 February 1983, the applicant was released from active duty after completing 1 year, 8 months, and 17 days of his current enlistment and a total of 3 years, 6 months, and 26 days of active military service.  

The applicant signed the DD Form 214 issued him at discharge, which listed the following awards and decorations in block 13:  the Army Service Ribbon, the Expert Badge (M-16), and the Sharpshooter Badge (Hand Grenade). 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Chapter 10, outlines the policies and procedures governing eligibility criteria and issuance of various certificates and letters.  Paragraph 10-7 allows commanders to recognize periods of faithful service, acts, or achievements which do not meet the standards required for decorations by issuing to individual U.S. military personnel a DA Form 2442 (Certificate of Achievement) or a Certificate of Achievement of local design. 

Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  It calls for entering in Block 13 all decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized.  There are no provisions for including local unit certificates on the 
DD Form 214.

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.  Army policy states that a general discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15 year 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.  The Board noted the contentions of the applicant, however these factors do not provide a basis for relief.  The Board concluded that the separation process was conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.  Therefore, the Board determined that an upgrade to the applicant’s characterization of service is not warranted. 

2.  Army Regulations call for entering only authorized decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign ribbons in block 13 of the DD Form 214.  While the regulation does allow commanders to recognize periods of faithful service, acts, or achievements which do not meet the standards required for decorations, it does not authorized inclusion of these certificates on the DD Form 214.  Therefore, the Board concluded relief is not warranted in this case. 

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 sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  

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

__gdp___  __mmd__  __js_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029107	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/02/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.  46	107.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.