MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  27 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000047697

	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:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 4 November 1980 as a combat engineer.

Between 17 August 1981 and 25 October 1983, the applicant was punished four times under Article 15, UCMJ, for possession of marijuana, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on four specifications, for operating a vehicle while drunk, and for failure to have his valid operator’s permit in his possession while operating a passenger vehicle.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, correctional custody, restriction, and extra duty.

On 21 November 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate 
him from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s poor duty performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 23 November 1983 and was found qualified for separation.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 2 December 1983, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 4 December 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 29 December 1983.  He had a total of 3 years,
1 month, and 26 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 4 January 1984.  The ADRB determined that 
his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on
7 November 1984.

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 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. 
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 notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

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 for that separation were 
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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

__js____  ___ra___  ___mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047697	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010227	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19831229	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200 C, 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.