MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            24 July 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086024

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a one-time drug offense and had not been in any trouble prior to this incident.  The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 January 1979 for a period of three years.  He completed the required training and served as a tank driver in Germany from 14 May 1979 through 1 March 1981.

On 8 September 1980, the applicant received formal counseling for acts of misconduct.  

On 12 September 1980, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating a general regulation by possessing seven blister packets containing barbituric acid derivatives; for wrongfully possessing 13.27 grams, more or less, of marihuana in the hashish form; and for wrongfully introducing 13.27 grams, more or less, of marihuana in the hashish form for the purpose of use, transfer and sale.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of 1/2 month's pay per month for 2 months, and 20 days in CCF.

On 24 December 1980, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to PT [physical training] formation.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $44.00.

The applicant received formal counseling on 8 January 1981 for acts of inefficiency.  

On 9 February 1981, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c based on unsuitability.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he would only receive a discharge under honorable conditions since he was being recommended for separation for unsuitability or unfitness pursuant to paragraph 13-5(3)(b).

On 17 February 1981, the separation authority approved the separation and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 2 March 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c, for unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.  He completed 2 years, 1 month, and 18 days of total active military service with no days of lost time.

Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph 13-4c provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record.

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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  

3.  The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a general under honorable conditions discharge.

4.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that he had a one-time drug offense and had not been in any trouble prior to this incident.  However, the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading his discharge to honorable.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086024	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030724	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810302	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, paragraph 13-4c	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.