MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 August 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035862

	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		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons 		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:  That the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from unsatisfactory performance to for the convenience of the government.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he acknowledges that he made a mistake, but he was a good soldier and he had never been in trouble prior to the offense for which he was discharged.  He is making this request so that he may be able to obtain veterans benefits.

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

On 11 January 1990, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  On 15 October 1991, he was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

Between December 1991 and July 1992, he was counseled repeatedly concerning his job performance, due to his need to improve his personal appearance, for dishonored checks (numerous times), for lack of motivation and for failure to repair. 

On 6 July 1992, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant for uttering 
dishonored checks that equaled to a total of $418.13.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended), and 14 days restriction. 

On 27 July 1992, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the applicant.  His commander cited the NJP, and the letters of indebtedness dated 23 June and 
26 June 1992 as the reason for the bar.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He contended that he did not wish to be barred from reenlistment, he acknowledged that he had poorly managed his financial affairs and stated that he was in the process of taking care of the problem.  On
4 August 1992, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

On an unknown date, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge (GD).  He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.

On 24 August 1992, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent to separate him.  He requested further consultation with legal counsel.  He was not entitled to have his case considered by a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 
On 23 July 1992, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation in connection with the separation action.  He was determined to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and to be mentally responsible.  He also met retention standards and was cleared for separation.

On 26 August 1992, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD under honorable conditions. 

On 3 September 1992, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD. He had completed 2 years, 7 months and 23 days of creditable active service and had no recorded lost time.

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. 

On 17 March 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s character of service to honorable.  However, the narrative reason for separation was not changed.

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 this requirement.

2.  The Board considered the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable.

3.  The applicant was provided many opportunities by his chain of command to improve his performance prior to being discharged, to which he failed to respond. 

4.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of this agency. The applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning veteran’s benefits.

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

__svw___  __mhm__  __lds____  DENY APPLICATION

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

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR20000035862	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000817	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920903	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A93.0000	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.