MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             3 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088151

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Mr. Paul M. Smith		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:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had a problem prior to entering the Army, but after entering the Army he learned to respect others.  He claims that he initially entered the Reserves and he was motivated while serving on his initial active duty for training (IADT).  However, after returning to his Reserve unit, he was not challenged and lost focus.  He entered the Regular Army and things again began to fall into place.  However, in March 1979, while preparing for an inspection, he injured his back.  He was hospitalized and remained in constant pain for over 30 days.  At this point, he claims that he began to believe that things would never be the same in the Army.  He was allowed to go home on leave and his mind and body changed during this period.  These changes resulted in his being released from the Army in October 1979. 

The applicant also states that subsequent to his service, he began a job that involved hard work that he didn’t mind because he had been taught to work in the Army.  However, after a short period, his body went through major changes and he discovered he could not lift the same amount of weight that he could prior to his back injury.  He continued to try and improve by continuing his education.  He also moved, but he could not hold a good job due to the restrictions caused by his physical condition.  He claims that he filed for disability in 2001, and was granted a 0% disability rating.  He states that he is no longer upset at this, but would like his discharge upgraded in order to have something to be proud of.

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

The applicant entered the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in December 1973.  He completed his IADT between 3 May and 13 September 1974.  Upon completion of IADT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Supply Specialist), and he was released from active duty (REFRAD) and returned to his USAR unit.

On 31 July 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty.  His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that the highest rank he attained during his active duty service was private/E-2 (PV2).  The record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition performed by the applicant during his tenure on active duty.  

The applicant’s record does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on three separate occasions.  It also shows that a bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant and that he received extensive formal counseling for discipline and duty performance issues. 
On 2 July 1979, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate (DA Form 4126-R) on the applicant.  This document showed that the applicant’s record of punishment under Article 15 included his acceptance of NJP on 20 November 1978, 1 March 1979, and 28 May 1979.  It also indicated that he had a record of non-payment of just debts that included several established offences of dishonored checks, for which he was formally counseled.  The unit commander stated that the applicant had displayed a lack of interest in his duties and had no motivation toward the Army.  He also indicated that the applicant’s initiative and military bearing were sub-standard in comparison to his peers and subordinates.  The unit commander finally recommended that the applicant be denied continued service.  On 9 July 1979, the appropriate authority approved the imposition of a bar to reenlistment on the applicant. 

On 10 October 1979, the applicant was notified by his unit commander of the intent to initiate action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability.  

On 11 October 1979, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed an election of rights.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and his right to consulting counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 21 October 1979, the appropriate authority approved the separation request on the applicant and directed that he be discharged by reason of unsuitability under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, and that he receive a GD.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 26 October 1979.  

The separation document issued to the applicant confirms that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 25 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 2 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  

The record gives no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade to his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could receive either an HD or GD.

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 Board notes the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge based on his desire to feel good about his time in the Army and on his post service related personal issues.  However, it finds neither of these factors are sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time, and that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

3.  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.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ __JHL  _JLP_  __PMS _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088151	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1979/10/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.