MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072953

	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:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 was refused mental health treatment and was tricked into signing a discharge, which he was told was a medical release form.  He goes on to state that he wanted to stay in the Army and make it a career and was devastated that the government would treat him as they did.  Since his discharge he has been in and out of Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and has been placed on medication.  When he recently got out of the hospital and his medication had been changed, he realized and remembered that he had been in the Army and the injustice that was done to him.

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

He enlisted in Boston, Massachusetts, on 9 January 1980, for a period of 3 years, training as a unit supply specialist and assignment under the 18-Month European Enlistment Option.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).

On 4 April 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for the wrongful possession of marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 7 days.

He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 20 May 1980.  On 29 August 1980, NJP was imposed against him for being drunk on duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 4 May 1981 and departed Germany on 28 November 1981, for assignment to Fort Riley, Kansas.

On 28 April 1982, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer and for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 6 May 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s continuous failure and refusal to follow orders, poor appearance and attitude, his lack of maturity to accept responsibility and conduct himself in a professional manner, and his inability to conduct the smallest tasks without constant supervision.  He advised the applicant of his rights and advised him to seek the assistance of counsel.

The applicant acknowledged the notification and indicated that he consented to the separation.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also declined a separation medical examination.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He also directed that the applicant not be transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 May 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(2), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had served 2 years, 3 months and 28 days of total active service.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of that regulation provided authorization for separation for the convenience of the government.  It provided, in pertinent part, for a discharge based on failure to demonstrate promotion potential and meet acceptable standards for retention.  A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally issued.

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 regulations then in effect, with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge issued and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case and the applicant’s otherwise undistinguished record of service.  

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was properly informed that he was being recommended for discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  Not only did he acknowledge that he understood his rights and the proceedings that were being initiated, he waived his right to a medical examination as well.  He made his acknowledgement in writing in each instance and the Board has no evidence to suggest that he did not understand what he was signing at the 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

___md __  __jhl____  __reb____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072953	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/05/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH5	
DISCHARGE REASON	FAIL TO MAINTAIN ACCEPT STAND	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360	144.0000/ADM DISC	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.