MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069740

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told by a major that he would be released with a fully honorable discharge.  He did nothing to deserve less than a fully honorable discharge.  It was not until he received his discharge papers from the National Personnel Records Center that he found he was not given a fully honorable discharge.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 March 1984.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (M48-M60 Armor Crewman).  He completed basic airborne training.

On 18 September 1984, the applicant was counseled for failing an in-ranks command inspection of which he was fully aware. 

On 3 November 1984, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his place of duty, missing movement of his unit to the Yakima Firing Center, and disobeying a lawful order.

On 7 November 1984, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for losing his identification card through neglect.

On 26 November 1984, the applicant was counseled by his battalion commander concerning his disregard for Army standards.  His drinking to the point of returning to duty under the influence of alcohol, becoming involved in an incident which caused him to miss movement, and his receiving a driving-while- intoxicated offense after having received two safety briefings concerning alcohol abuse were specifically cited.

On 27 November 1984, the applicant was counseled by his company commander that his performance since arriving at the unit had been poor and his habit of abusing alcohol warranted his elimination.  Such elimination could result in the issuance of a general or other than honorable discharge certificate and a review by any Amy appeal board may not result in an upgrade of a discharge certificate which was less than honorable.

On 28 November 1984, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  

On 29 November 1984 the applicant received a general officer reprimand for refusing to submit to a blood alcohol content test.  
On 29 November 1984, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The examining physician found the applicant to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and to be mentally responsible.

On 12 December 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  

On 12 December 1984, the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 13 December 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a general discharge.

On 19 December 1984, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He had completed 8 months and 21 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  The applicant signed his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

In pertinent part, Army Regulation 635-200 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.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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 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.

2.  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.  There is no evidence to show that he was told he would receive a fully honorable discharge and he knew when he signed his DD Form 214 that he was getting a general discharge under honorable conditions.  His record of conduct and disciplinary actions does not warrant a characterization of fully honorable.

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

__FNE__  __RWA__  __HBO__   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069740	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/12/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.