MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056930

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it is time for his discharge to be upgraded because he deserves it.

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

On 4 January 1980, he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for 6 years in the pay grade of E-1.  On 31 January 1980, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the delayed entry program in the pay grade of E-1.   He successfully completed his training as a Air Defense Artillery Short Range Missile Crewman.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 12 September 1980 for being derelict in the performance of his duty by failing to properly secure his assigned weapon.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

He was counseled seven times between 10 December 1981 and 2 March 1982 for unsatisfactory duty performance, drinking just prior to arrival at work, being out of uniform and unprepared for inspection, having an unsecured wall locker, disrespect, disobeying a lawful order, being absent without leave, disobeying instructions and for lack of job knowledge.  During each counseling session the applicant was told that his actions would not be tolerated and that his actions would lead to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

On 4 February 1982, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for failure to obey a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer to sustain from drinking anything alcoholic 5 hours prior to duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

The applicant had NJP imposed against him again on 17 March 1982 for failure to obey a lawful order from his superior NCO to wear his helmet, equipment and to carry his protective mask.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 7 April 1982, he underwent a mental status evaluation.  The psychiatrist opined that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand right from wrong, that he was mentally responsible and that he met Army retention requirements.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 14 April 1982, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance had been initiated.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 16 April 1982 and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 29 April 1982.  Accordingly, on 7 May 1982, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability, apathy based on his defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.  He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of total active service and he was issued a general discharge.  He was returned to the USAR Control Group to complete his Reserve obligation and was subsequently issued a general discharge from the USAR on 30 January 1986.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and commission of a serious offense.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, the fact that he believes that his discharge should be upgraded is insufficient justification for granting his request.  He was counseled numerous times regarding his attitude and inability to follow orders.  He had NJP imposed against him on three separate occasions and considering his acts of indiscipline it appears that his service was appropriately characterized, as his service was not totally honorable.

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

___lds___  __rvo ___  ___cp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056930	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820507	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	547	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  560	144.4300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.