MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040752

	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. McKim-Spilker.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone 		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer 		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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable (HD) and that the reason for discharge be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and made mistakes in the past; that he has been employed with the same employer for over 12 years; that he has been married for nearly 13 years; and, that he is seeking employment in law enforcement.

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

On 5 August 1980 he enlisted as a private first class/E-3 in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years and station of choice at Fort Hood, Texas.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and remained at Fort Jackson for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle and Power Generator Mechanic).  He did not complete AIT.

On 4 December 1980 the applicant was formally counseled by his drill sergeant for leaving the company area without permission.  The applicant, in effect, stated that he did not want to remain in the Army and had only enlisted because his grandmother had pressured him to do so.  He indicated that he wanted to be discharged from the Army in order to attend college and become a gymnist.

On 8 December 1980 the first sergeant counseled the applicant after he refused to report for AIT training.  The applicant, in effect, stated that he would prefer to be in the stockade than stand even one more minute in school and he again refused to report for training. 

On 11 December 1980 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order to report to formation.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-2, a forfeiture of 7 days pay, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 15 December 1980 the drill sergeant counseled the applicant for his lack of motivation.  The applicant, in effect, stated that he had no interest in the Army and his number-one goal was getting out and becoming a gymnist.

On 29 January 1981 he accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order to report for formation and training.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 2 months, 21 days restriction, and 30 days extra duty.  

On 26 January 1981 his commanding officer notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 by reason of unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.  The unit commander indicated that his specific reasons for initiating separation action were:  the applicant’s apathy; lack of motivation; and, his continued disobeying of lawful orders. 

On 17 February 1981 the applicant was separated and issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with 6 months and 13 days active military service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability, 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.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

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 discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation. 

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was young and made mistakes due to his youth, however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  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.

4.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he is seeking employment in the law enforcement field, however, the Board does not grant an upgrade solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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

___jhl___  ___jns___  ___mhm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040752	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810217	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.4000.000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9301.0000	
2. 	144.9221.0000	
3. 	144.0100.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.