MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 July 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003087256

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy		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 discharge under honorable conditions (general) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of his discharge he was not offered treatment for his chemical dependency.  He states that he make a mistake by smoking hash while he was in Germany and that he did not know that he had a problem with alcohol and drug addiction at the time.  He states that it took him many years to come to the conclusion that he had a problem; however, due to certain events that have occurred over the years he is finally able to accept the fact that he had a problem with alcohol and drug addiction.  He concludes by stating that he is looking forward to making amends for his past mistakes.  In support of his appeal he submits a copy of his patient discharge plan from the New Horizons Alcohol/Chemical Dependency Treatment Center.

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

On 31 March 1981, he enlisted in the Army in Syracuse, New York, for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as an indirect fire infantryman.  Upon completion of his training he was transferred to Fort Ord, California.

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 July 1982 and to pay grade E-3 on 1 September 1982.

Although the Record of Informal Counseling Session is undated, the applicant was counseled by his squad leader for missing formation after he was told to get out of bed three times.  He was told that he would be on extra training for 3 days. He refused to sign the record of counseling.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 5 October 1983, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 6 December 1983, the applicant was counseled by his squad leader for failure to sign in on the alert, being in bed past the required wake up time, failure to eat chow by 07:30 formation and lying down during working hours.  He was told that he would have 1 day of extra training.  The applicant responded to the counseling by indicating that the information contained therein was partially untrue.

On 20 March 1984, NJP was imposed against him for wrongfully using marijuana in the hashish form.  His punishment consisted of a two pay grade reduction, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 16 April 1984, he was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 626-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  His commanding officer cited the two records of NJP and his inability to conform to the rules and regulations as a basis for the recommendation for discharge.  The commanding officer also indicated that the applicant had not responded to counseling and that he had shown that there was little chance of advancement or improvement if he stayed in the Army.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 17 April 1984 and after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 25 April 1984, the applicant was furnished a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  His commanding officer referenced the two records of NJP and his lack of response to counseling as a basis for the bar to reenlistment.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 25 April 1984.  Accordingly, on 14 May 1984, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, based on unsatisfactory performance.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 14 days of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence of record that shows 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 the available facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions.  However, the evidence of record shows that he was counsel twice and he had NJP imposed against twice as a result of his acts of misconduct and in view of his numerous acts of misconduct, it does not appear that his general discharge is too severe as his service was not totally honorable.  

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

_mkp ___  __wtm___  _teo ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087256	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/05/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	572	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  594	144.5300/Drug Use	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.