MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041739

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		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 discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was not discharged in a correct and lawful manner.  He did not receive proper counsel; an E-4 and not a Physician (medical officer) conducted his separation physical.  He further states that he was a good soldier and that he was railroaded out of the Army.  

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

On 28 December 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.
He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).

The applicant was counseled on four different occasions from June to July 1983, concerning his personal appearance, for being unprepared for TA-50 inspection, for loss of equipment and for failure to repair.

On 25 July 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 17 August 1983, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  The bar to reenlist was based on his duty performance, the NJP, his record of repeated minor infractions and substandard personal appearance. 

Between 7 September and 13 October 1983, the applicant was counseled on eleven different occasions for failure to repair, for his personal appearance, for disobeying a lawful order, for being disrespectful to a superior non-commissioned officer and for loss of personal and unit equipment.

On 5 December 1983, the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent without leave from 21 to 28 November 1983.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for two months, 30 days restriction and extra duty.

On 29 December 1983, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s poor duty performance, his lack of motivation and
actions which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.

The applicant’s military record shows that he signed his counseling form on 
30 December 1983, which indicated that he was advised by legal counsel and that he understood the contemplated separation action.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination, which found him, fit for separation.  His record shows that a physician conducted his separation physical. 

On 5 January 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 10 January 
1984, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He completed 1 year, and 6 days of creditable active service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier 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 evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was based on his unsatisfactory duty performance.  The evidence of record does not substantiate the applicant’s allegations.  The evidence of record shows that he received proper counseling and his separation physical was conducted by a medical officer. 

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

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

__aao___  __mhm___  __tfb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041739	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000926	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840110	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.