MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  6 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001057112

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant provides no statement in support of his request.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 10 May 1988 with prior Reserve Component service.  While still in training he was Absent Without Leave for 5 days.  After completing training as a Bradley mechanic he was assigned to Germany.

Counseling statements from December 1988 through April 1991 discuss the applicant’s problems with indebtedness, weight control, and failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  On 7 May 1991 the applicant was informed of the commander’s intent to recommend him for separation for unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and, after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The commander forwarded his recommendation that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance based on six APFT failures, indebtedness, failure to turn-in his weapon from guard duty, and failure to follow instructions.  The recommendation also noted that he had been barred from reenlistment on 25 April 1991.

The separation authority approved the recommendation on 14 May 1991 and directed separation under honorable conditions.  Effective 10 June 1991 the applicant was separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had 3 years and 26 days creditable service and 5 days lost time.

On 2 May 2001, that Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his general discharge.

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.  It 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 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 the facts of the case.

2.  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.

3.  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

___ls___  ___jm___  ___mm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057112	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010906	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19910610	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.