MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039089

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		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 upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he originally enlisted for a period of 2 years and contributed his money ($1,200.00) for his education (GI Bill) and that either his discharge should be upgraded or he should receive his benefits.

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

The applicant enlisted in Jackson, Mississippi on 27 November 1990 for a period of 3 years, training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic, and enrollment in the Army College Fund.

He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Korea on 28 May 1991 where he served until he was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington on 11 June 1992. 

On 29 December 1992, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years, stabilization at Fort Lewis for 1 year, and election of the Fort Lewis Education Reenlistment Option.  However, on 30 June 1993 he was transferred with his unit to Fort Polk, Louisiana.

The applicant’s commander initiated action on 3 February 1994 to bar the applicant from reenlistment based on the applicant’s having failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on two consecutive occasions.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 11 February 1994.  The applicant elected not to appeal the bar to reenlistment.

On 23 May 1994, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for four specifications of failure to go to his place of duty, disobeying a lawful order and using disrespectful language towards an NCO.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction.  He did not appeal the punishment. 

The applicant’s commander initiated action on 11 July 1994 to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the NJP imposed against him, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions regarding his indisciplines and inappropriate conduct, and his lack of demonstrated responsibility, discipline, and initiative.

After consulting with counsel the applicant acknowledged that he understood the consequences of being discharged with a general discharge and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 11 August 1994 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 3 years, 8 months, and 11 days of total active service.

On 20 January 2000, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and cited essentially the same reasons that he has cited to this Board.  The ADRB, after reviewing the available records and evidence, determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged and voted unanimously to deny his request.

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 their command when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 that requirement.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he should be afforded his educational benefits or his discharge should be upgraded is without merit.  Although the Board has no authority in regards to granting or administering VA benefits, a discharge is a characterization of a service member’s overall record of service and a loss of benefits that may result is not part of the determination process,  As such, given the available evidence in this case, the Board has determined that his discharge was properly characterized.  
5.  While the Board understands the applicant’s desires to have his discharge upgraded, he has failed to show that his discharge was in error or unjust or that there is sufficient basis to warrant an upgrade. 

6.  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

___mvt__  ___owt__  __kan___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039089	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1994/08/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch13	
DISCHARGE REASON	572	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  572	144.4900/a49.00/unsat perf	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.