MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:                 21 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2000045774

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Anderson		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 her general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that she be granted the benefits that she paid for.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that prior to her discharge she was informed that under Chapter 13 that she would be entitled to receive VA benefits, such as a VA Home Loan.  In support of her application she submits a copy of her DD Form 214.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 30 December 1994 as a mobile subscriber equipment transmission system operator.

Between August 1995 and November 1995, the applicant received three
counseling statements and two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for failure to follow instructions, for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer and for failure to go to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, restriction and extra duties.  

On 19 January 1996, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her 
from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived her rights to a hearing before a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 24 January 1996, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He based his recommendation on the disciplinary actions against the applicant and numerous negative counseling statements.

On 29 January 1996, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 13 February 1996.  She had a total of 1 year,
1 month and 14 days of creditable service.  

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 17 May 2000 for an upgrade of her discharge.  The ADRB determined that her discharge was proper and equitable and denied her request on 30 June 2000.

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.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that she was informed that she would be entitled to receive VA benefits such as VA Home Loans.  However, the Board noted that eligibility for Veteran’s benefits does not fall with the purview of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Further the ABCMR does not correct discharges for the purpose of establishing eligibility 
for VA benefits. 

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

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.  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:

JAL_____  CLG_____  ENA____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045774	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960213	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.