MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039975

	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. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson		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, that his rank be reinstated to the pay grade of E-5, and that all of his decorations and awards be reinstated to him as well.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was indiscriminately written up by his peers in a deliberate attempt to sabotage him from advancing in rank or status because he was perceived as a threat to them career-wise.  He goes on to state that it was all blown way out of proportion and that he has suffered long enough.  He further states that he is a good man who deserves another chance to redeem himself and his name.

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

He enlisted on 16 October 1981 for a period of 4 years and training as an Air Defense Crewmember.  He was assigned for training at Fort Bliss, Texas and eventually completed his training.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 July 1982.  He remained at Fort Bliss until he was transferred to Germany on 15 April 1983.

On 8 August 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from his commander.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 17 August 1983, nonjudicial punishment was again imposed against him for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

The applicant’s commander initiated action to bar the applicant from reenlistment based on his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions and his disciplinary history.  The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted that he deserved another chance, that everyone made mistakes, and that the action to bar him from reenlistment was unjustified.  He requested that the bar to reenlistment be disapproved.

The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 29 August 1983.

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 22 September 1983 of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 August to 2 September 1983 and for breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement for 10 days and a forfeiture of pay.  However, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as providing for a forfeiture of pay.  

The applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance based on his inability and unwillingness to make an effort to be successful as a soldier.  He also opined that the applicant had a callous disregard for basic soldier responsibilities and that his deliberate disobedience of his chain of command was indicative of his immaturity and irresponsibility.

After consulting with counsel the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; whereas he asserted that all of his problems were due to problems he had with his girlfriend and had since been resolved.  He went on to state that he planned to get married and stay in the Army and that he believed that his conviction by a court-martial had taught him a lesson.  He also stated that he knew of several soldiers who had disciplinary records and were given a second chance and that he also believed that he deserved another chance or at least an honorable discharge.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 7 October 1983 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 28 October 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of total active service and had 7 days of lost time due to AWOL.

A review of the applicant’s report of separation (DD Form 214) shows that he was separated in the pay grade of E-1 and that he was given credit for all awards documented in his records.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 his 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 this 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 and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  The applicant was never advanced past the pay grade of E-3 and his DD Form 214 contains all of the awards that he was authorized to receive.

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

___cjp___  __ewl___  ___tp ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039975	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/10/28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	572/UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  572	144.4900/A49.00/UNSAT PERF	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.