MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 September 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067149

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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:  Award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL).

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Army Regulation for the GCMDL states 36 months of good service.  He was denied a GCMDL due to the company discharging him under chapter 13 for his wife’s writing of bad checks.  He also states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ (ABCMR) prior review of his military service stated service member had 36 months of good service, early promotion, and 2 Army Achievement Medals, etc.  In December 2001, he was at a Veterans Assistance Center on an unrelated matter and the counselor stated this could be appealed to the ABCMR.  He submits a copy of 2 pages from his appeal to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in support of his application.

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

He enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program for 8 years, as a private, pay grade
E-1, on 6 September 1984.  He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years in pay grade E-3 on 30 July 1985.

He completed his basic and advanced training and was assigned military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman).

He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 15 September 1986.

On 23 August 1988, the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment.  The commander stated that the applicant failed to pay for clothing purchases, had written bad checks totaling $900, had 18 outstanding debts, restoration of his check cashing privileges; but was responsible for his wife’s bad checks, had filed for bankruptcy and pending punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for falsification of a loan request.

On the same day, the applicant was advised of this recommendation and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 24 August 1988, the applicant’s battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment.  The applicant was notified of this action on 6 September 1988, and the applicant elected not to appeal the bar.

On 1 September 1988, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for making and uttering to the Fort Bragg Exchange, certain checks, between 10 July 1988 and 10 August 1988, for various amounts (in excess of $335.00) and thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in Wachovia Bank for 

payment of such checks in full upon its presentation for payment.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3 (to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 1 March 1989), 7 days restriction and 7 days extra duty.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant received formal counselings on 22 April, 17, 19 and 31 August and 6 September 1988 for missing formation, failure to pay debts, bar to reenlistment, inability to manage funds, and about the commander’s intent to recommend discharge.

A Commander’s Summary completed after the applicant had completed 6 months in his unit showed that the applicant received five negative counselings.  The commander summarized the applicant’s general duty performance by stating that it was substandard.  The commander also stated that the applicant felt he could get away with a great deal within the Army system and took up entirely too much time, chain of command wise, and in one instance, a non-commissioned officer in his platoon received an oral reprimand for coming to the applicant’s aid in a marital dispute.  He also stated that the applicant’s extenuating circumstances were the applicant’s on again, off again, and on again marriage.

A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 September 1988, indicated that the applicant was mentally responsible; that he was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right; that he seemed unwilling and/or unable to appear to be a good candidate for rehabilitative transfer, reclassification, hospitalization, or retraining; that he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command and that it was recommended that he be administratively discharged.

On 14 September 1988, the applicant was advised of the proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander stated that it was his judgment that the applicant would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and or become a satisfactory soldier evidenced by his receiving an Article 15 for uttering checks and dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds for payment and numerous adverse counselings.  The commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  

On 16 September 1988, after consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he understood the effect of this type of discharge and that, if he received a character of service which was less than honorable, he could apply to the ADRB or the ABCMR for upgrading.

On 26 September 1988, the appropriate authority approved his discharge.

He was discharged on 14 October 1988, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge, under honorable conditions.  He was credited with 3 years, 2 months and 15 days net active service. 

On 30 January 1990, the ADBR upgraded his discharge to honorable, stating that the Board found that the only misconduct was surrounding the bad checks; therefore, the Board found the reason for discharge inequitable and voted to change the applicant’s discharge to Secretarial Authority.

He enlisted in the California Army National Guard in pay grade E-4 on 26 May 1992 and was honorably discharged for expiration of service obligation in pay grade E-4 on 25 May 1993.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the GCMDL is awarded on a selective basis to soldiers who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the GCMDL, disqualification must be justified.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:

1.  The applicant's overall record of service and his accomplishments, as reflected by his accelerated advancement to E-2, are noted by the Board.  However, these factors do not demonstrate that there is an injustice.  The misconduct, as evidenced by the applicant’s nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, UCMJ for uttering checks and dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds for payment and numerous adverse counselings, made him ineligible for the GCMDL.  The applicant’s commander felt that the applicant’s general duty performance was substandard and that the applicant felt he could get away with a great deal within the Army system.

2.  The Board further concludes that the applicant’s belief that he was separated because his wife wrote bad checks and because of his 36 months of good service, he should have received the GCMDL, does not warrant granting him a GCMDL, so as to place him equal with individuals awarded the GCMDL and whose records, by comparison, are without blemish.   

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the fact that his discharge has been upgraded to honorable; however, based on the applicant’s commander indicating that the applicant’s duty performance was substandard for 6 months, the applicant’s punishment under Article 15 and his bar to reenlistment, by awarding the applicant the GCMDL would, in effect, provide the applicant with an award he is not entitled. 

4.  The Board finally concludes that the applicant’s overall service, including a bar to reenlistment, an Article 15, and several instances of counseling, is less than that expected for award of the GCMDL.  He has not shown otherwise.

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

_JNS____  _WDP__  _DPH___    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067149	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.	107.56	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.