MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050634

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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:  In effect, that he was unjustly harassed and unjstly discharged under honorable conditions and that he deserved to be discharged with an honorable discharge.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his report of separation, several letters of recommendation and several incomplete counseling statements.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not available for review by the Board.  However, the supporting documents submitted by the applicant show:

He enlisted in Seattle, Washington on 10 September 1993 and received training as an administrative specialist in military occupational specialty 71L.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present for review by the Board.  However, the available evidence shows that on 21 November 1997, while serving in a military police company in Germany in the pay grade of E-4, the applicant was released from active duty under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 4 years, 2 months and 12 days of total active service.

A review of the counseling statements, though incomplete, indicate that the applicant was experiencing domestic relations problems with his wife and that he was also experiencing problems with maintaining his weight.

On 13 December 2000 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined that in the absence of the discharge proceedings and evidence to the contrary, that it must presume administrative regularity in the discharge process.  The ADRB denied his request.

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 his command 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.  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 Board also finds, as did the ADRB that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

3.  Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

4.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances.

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

__jph ___  ___klw __  __rjw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050634	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1997/11/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  572	144.4900/A49.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.