MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2003                        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003087383

	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. Eric S. Moore		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry 		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock 		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 under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That once he entered the service he was found to be medically unfit by having asthma and having flat feet. The medical condition caused him to be unable to perform some of his duties to the fullest potential because several times he was out of breath and could not maintain the level of soldiering required of him.  In support of his application, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military record show:

The applicant served in the U.S. Army Reserve prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army on 27 June 1984.  He enlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years.  He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 72nd Armor in Korea from 19 November 1984 through 17 November 1985, and HHC, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry at Fort Riley, Kansas from
25 November 1985 through 25 November 1986.  On 1 June 1985, applicant was promoted to the grade of specialist, E-4.

On 1 August 1986, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for willful and wrongful indecent exposure.  He also orally communicated to two females certain indecent language to wit “Well, suck on this.”  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $194.00 for one month and 14 days extra duty.
 
On 29 August 1986, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of private first class, E-3, forfeiture of $183.00 pay per month for 1 month, and restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days. 

On 10 October 1986, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being intoxicated during duty hours and for assaulting another soldier.  His approved sentence was a forfeiture of $150.00 pay for one month.

On 24 October 1986, the applicant was notified of his proposed discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability/ unsatisfactory performance.  

On 29 October 1986, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge and consulted with legal counsel.        

On 21 November 1986, the applicant submitted rebuttal comments, which stated that he wanted to stay in the Army and that he could make a considerable contribution to his country.  The applicant also stated that over a 2-year period he received a number of favorable citations and that the two Article 15s he received should not have been given.  He requested a rehabilitative transfer.

On 24 November 1986, the separation authority waived the request for a rehabilitative transfer, approved the recommendation for separation, and directed the applicant be given a general discharge.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 November 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months and 29 days of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted.  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. 

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was medically unfit by reason of having asthma and flat feet.  However, there is no evidence in the applicant’s records which shows he suffered from a medical condition and the applicant has not provided evidence that supports his contention.  Evidence of record shows he had a record of prior misconduct to include two Article 15s and one summary court-martial.  Therefore, the Board determined that these contentions are without merit.

3.  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.
4.  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.

NOTE:  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MB__  ___HOF _  ___AO___ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087383	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031016	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19861125	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.