MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 APRIL 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066728

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  Since his release from active duty he has "remained true to [his] country" and feels that he deserves an honorable discharge.  He states that while he understands that a "general under honorable conditions discharge is almost the same as an honorable" he would like to have an honorable discharge "for [his] conscience."  He submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty on 14 June 1985, at the age of 19.  He had 12 years of formal education and all of his aptitude scores were at or above 110.  In December 1985 he was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky as a heavy vehicle driver after successful completion of basic and advanced individual training.  In March 1986 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-3.

Beginning in June 1986 the applicant received a series of performance counseling concerning his failure to pay his debts and failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  Between June and December 1986, the applicant was punished three times under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), twice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and once for disobeying an order not to have alcohol in his locker.  He was reduced to pay grade E-2 in October 1986.

In December 1986 his commander referred the applicant to the installation's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program.  In January 1987 he was declared an unsatisfactory participant and dropped from the program.  He was subsequently barred from reenlisting.

In March 1987 his unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  The commander cited the applicant's repeated counseling, three records of nonjudicial punishment, two records of civil conviction, and pending UCMJ actions for fighting and failure to repair, as the basis for his recommendation.  He indicated that the applicant "had not developed into a satisfactory soldier despite attempts to help him" and that he has "consistently been in and out of trouble since his arrival."  The commander noted that the applicant "expressed his desire to get out…."

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.

The recommendation was approved and on 19 March 1987 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions for unsatisfactory performance.

In January 1990 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 applies to the separation of enlisted soldiers when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  It notes that commanders can separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander's judgement, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier, it is likely that the soldier will be a disruptive influence in present or future duty assignments, or it is likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur.  The service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record.

Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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.  While the Board has considered the applicant’s contention that he has been “true” to his country since his separation, it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to warrant the relief requested.

3.  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.

4.  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

__MKP      __EJA___  __RTD__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066728	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020411	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.