MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070685

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable and that he be given a more favorable narrative reason for separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he made some serious mistakes 19 years ago and there is nothing he can do to change that now, but apologize.  He goes on to state that he has not been in any trouble with the law in the past years and is now advancing in his civilian career.  He further states that despite all of his accomplishments in civilian life, he may be denied further advancement when he has to produce his report of separation (DD Form 214) and they see that he has a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance.  He also states that he is ashamed to show his DD Form 214 and is sorry for his performance, but he is now working in a field he dearly loves and would ask the Board to consider how important the issue is to him.

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

He enlisted on 17 April 1980 for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to the 1st Infantry Division.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas, where he remained until he was transferred to Germany on 1 July 1981.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 18 November 1981.

On 27 September 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to bar him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions on   sub-standard duty performance, writing bad checks, falling out of physical training runs, and not shaving.  He cited nine specific instances and dates.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment on 6 October 1982.

On 29 November 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for knowingly uttering bad checks.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, extra duty and restriction.

On 27 December 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance and misconduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.  He indicated that the applicant had a long history of poor performance, marginal conduct, temporary profiles and medical treatment and a history of failure to pay his just debts.  The applicant waived his right to consult with counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He also directed that the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 4 February 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 2 years, 9 months and 18 days of total active service.

He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 21 January 1986.  He contended at that time that he had been unjustly accused of the offenses that served as the basis for his discharge and was unable to bring witnesses to speak in his own behalf.  He also asserted that the accusation regarding the bad checks was a mistake on the part of the bank and that he was not afforded time to clear the matter up.  After reviewing the available evidence, the ADRB determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged and voted unanimously to deny his request.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  A discharge under honorable conditions is authorized; however, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his misconduct and his overall unsatisfactory performance of duty during the time he served.

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

__rwa___  ___jm___  ___rvo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070685	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/02/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERFORM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  191	110.0200	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.