MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            15 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039029

	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	
	Mr. Leland A. Edwards		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Orville W. Troesch Jr.  		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman 		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		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 his general discharge be changed to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that black soldiers were discriminated against and that he was the subject of verbal abuse. 

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

He enlisted on 6 August 1991 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Ord, California.

The applicant was the subject of repeated counseling.  On 10 and 11 June 1992, he was counseled for failing to follow instructions and showing disrespect to an NCO; on 27 August 1992, he was counseled for lying to his platoon leader and company commander; on 14 September 1992, he was counseled for disobeying a lawful order; on 26 October 1992, he was counseled for disrespect to his squad leader and team leader; and on 27 October 1992, he was counseled for failure to follow instructions.

On 23 December 1992, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to follow a lawful order.  He was placed on restriction for 12 days and given 12 days of extra duty.

On 18 March 1993, the applicant’s company commander recommended he be discharged for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and waived consideration by a board of officers.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 22 March 1993, the separation authority approved the company commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a general discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 4 June 1993 at Fort Ord, California. He had 1 year, 9 months and 29 days of creditable service.

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.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a discharge upgrade.  On 14 March 2000, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request.

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 requirement.

2.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records, nor has he provided any evidence to indicate that he was the subject of prejudicial treatment or the victim of discrimination by his chain of command.

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

__owt___  __kan___  __mvt____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039029	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000615	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930604	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  635-200 Ch13 .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.