MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           30 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067210

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD), and that he be credited with 2 additional days of service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged because he was overweight and was never afforded the opportunity to be placed in the overweight program.  He states that he has an extensive medical history that is documented in his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records.  He states, he moved to Texas and in an attempt to receive medical treatment, he was told that his active duty service was 2 days short of the two years needed to qualify for medical benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  He finally states that without the VA medical care his health is in danger.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document 
(DD Form 214).

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

On 7 December 1982, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Combat Telecommunications Center Operator).  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3.  

The applicant’s record contains an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  31 January 1984, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty without proper authority; and 14 May 1984, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty without proper authority and disobeying a lawful order.  In addition, the applicant was formally counseled by members of his chain of command for the following infractions:  speeding in the motor pool; three occasions of failure to report to his appointed place of duty; unsatisfactory progress in the weight control program; twice for failure to meet uniform requirements; failure to shave his mustache; and for not shining his boots.  In addition, on 28 August 1984, the applicant was barred from reenlistment based on this disciplinary history.  

On 8 November 1984, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactorily performance.  The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s failure to report to his appointed place of duty on four separate occasions, his substandard military appearance, speeding in the motor pool, disobeying a lawful order, overweight program failure, past due accounts, and writing bad checks.  

The applicant consulted counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a GD and on 5 December 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 
29 days of active military service.  

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

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, and 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 accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time, and the Board concludes that it accurately reflects his overall record of service.  

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the reason for his discharge was his being overweight, and that he was not afforded the opportunity to be placed in the overweight program, but it finds these claims lack merit.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance as a soldier, of which his failure to meet Army weight standards was only a part.  In addition, the record confirms he was placed in and unsuccessfully participated in a weight control program, for which he was counseled. 

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s medical history, the Board finds that the applicant’s disciplinary history and poor duty performance clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge, and there is no basis for granting him credit for 2 additional days of service.  Thus, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case. 

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

    AAO         HOF            TEO      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067210	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19841205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.