MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048636

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his general discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse action.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 1982 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (heavy anti-armor weapons infantryman).  He served in Hawaii from 19 October 1983 through 7 January 1985 and was promoted to specialist four on 1 February 1984.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment on 9 September 1982 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  

During the period January 1984 through October 1984, the applicant received several negative counseling statements for missing morning formation, failing to obey a lawful order, wrongfully using marihuana and pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  In addition, he received nonjudicial punishment and a bar to reenlistment in September 1984 for the wrongful use of marihuana.

On 7 December 1984, the applicant was notified of his proposed discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance based on his inability to adapt to the standards and conduct of military life and his use of marihuana.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

On 12 December 1984, the separation authority waived a rehabilitative transfer, approved the recommendation for separation and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

The applicant was discharged on 10 January 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had 2 years, 11 months and 14 days of creditable service.

The applicant underwent a separation mental status evaluation and medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  

There is no indication in the applicant’s records which shows he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 contention that his general discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse action.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant received two nonjudicial punishments, a bar to reenlistment and several negative counseling statements for acts of indiscipline.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  

4.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

FNE_____  MKP_____  MHM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048636	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010215    	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850110	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.