MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 May 2000       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040408

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served 34 months and his general discharge was based on isolated incidents during a three-month period. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 21 June 1990 for a period of 4 years.  He served as a combat engineer in Southwest Asia from 26 October 1990 through 11 April 1991. 

Between 2 July 1992 and 8 April 1993, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on four occasions for being drunk on duty, disobeying a lawful order, disrespectful in deportment toward a sergeant, failure to go to appointed place of duty, and violation of a lawful regulation (underage drinking).  His records also contain nine counseling statements for various infractions during the period 11 March 1992 through 19 March 1993. 

On 24 March 1993 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and cited the applicant’s nonjudicial punishments for unsatisfactory performance and the fact that he has not shown a desire or willingness to rehabilitate himself and become a quality soldier.

The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected to submit a statement on his behalf.  However, no statement was available to the Board.

Prior to discharge, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination and was cleared for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 April 1993 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 2 years, 10 months and 3 days of total active duty.

On 22 March 2000 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 applicant’s contention that his general discharge was based on isolated incidents during a three-month period is not valid.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for various infractions during the period March 1992 to March 1993.  Evidence of record also shows he received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions between 2 July 1992 and
8 April 1993. 

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 therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

5.  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 aforementioned requirement.
  
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

RVO____  JMA_____  CJP____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040408	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000511	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930423	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.