MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071969

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes that his time in service was honorable and that he performed to the best of his abilities at the time.

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

He enlisted on 3 May 1984 for a period of 3 years, training as a radio teletype operator and training under the airborne training option.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 26 November 1984. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 March 1985.

On 14 September 1985, the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment due to multiple incidents of writing dishonored checks and for failure to pay his just debts.  The applicant elected not to submit matters in his own behalf and the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment on 1 October 1985.

On 27 March 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave from 3 February to 11 February and 15 February to 16 March 1986.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and 30 days confinement in the correctional custody facility.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 1 April 1986 and was found to be mentally responsible.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 June 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 2 years of total active service and had 36 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  While an honorable or general discharge may be issued, 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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 have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

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

___kah__  __ao____  __tl_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071969	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/06/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  730	144.7800/A78.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.