MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060345

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 discipline problems while in the Army were the result of mental illness.  In support of his application, he submits a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) letter, dated 2 June 1999.

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

The applicant enlisted on 2 November 1982 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records indicate that on 
21 November 1983 the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year and 11 days of total active service with 
9 days of lost time due to confinement.      

The applicant provided DVA documentation, dated 2 June 1999, in support of his claim.  This letter shows that the applicant is 100 percent disabled but does not state the disabling condition. 

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade 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.  In the absence of evidence of the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that his discipline problems while in the Army were the result of mental illness.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention. 

4.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

5.  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.

6.  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

RVO____  DPH____  RKS_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060345	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011016	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19831121	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.