MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 September 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074492

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern 		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz  		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 his discharge is almost 20 years old.

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

The applicant enlisted on 14 March 1983 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training and basic airborne training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for duty as an indirect fire infantryman.

On 21 December 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for selling military property and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on two occasions.  His punishment consisted of correctional custody (suspended), extra duty and restriction.

On 15 February 1984, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a request to bar him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had demonstrated traits of unsuitability, specifically, that he received a self-inflicted gunshot wound under questionable circumstances while deployed in a combat zone, that he had been absent from formation on three separate occasions and that he had sold government property.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 16 February 1984.  On 3 August 1984, the bar to reenlistment was reviewed and it was determined that the bar to reenlistment should remain in effect.

On 22 May 1984, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for going from his appointed place of duty without authority.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.

On 22 August 1984, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination and a mental status evaluation on 30 August 1984 and was cleared for separation.

On 10 September 1984, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for selling military property.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, extra duty and restriction.

Between 1 February 1984 and 30 September 1984, the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for various infractions which included leaving a 81mm mortar tube outside of the Company Arm’s Room unsecured, missing formation, being late for formation, failure to comply with daily inspections, failing to go at the prescribed time to appointed place of duty, selling military property and for being careless while cleaning his weapon which resulted in a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

On 17 September 1984, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander cited that the applicant had demonstrated that he could not meet the required standards despite counseling, that he continued to commit acts of misconduct and that he lacked the motivation and determination to be rehabilitated.  

The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected not to make a statement on his behalf.

On 19 September 1984, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 11 October 1984 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year, 6 months and 28 days of total active service.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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

EJA____  TBR_____  KAH_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074492	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020917	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19841011	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.