MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            9 September 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089183

	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. Yvonne J. Foskey .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan 		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, he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in 1995, and was never informed of the ADRB decision on his case.  He would now like this Board to upgrade his discharge.  

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

On 14 January 1988, he entered active duty in the Regular Army.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember).  His record also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SPC), and it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

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 between 17 October 1990 and 4 August 1991, he was formally counseled on numerous occasions for disciplinary infractions and poor duty performance by members of his chain of command.  

On 24 September 1991, 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 unsatisfactory performance.

On 25 September 1991, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and, after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation actions and its effects, he completed an election of rights by waiving his right to counsel.  In connection with this processing, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The statement made by the applicant is not part of the separation packet nor is it on file in his record.  

On 4 October 1991, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he be discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, and that he receive a GD.  On 28 October 1991, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time of his separation confirms that at that time he had completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 15 days of active military service.

On 9 December 1996, the ADRB found that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request to upgrade his discharge.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s assertion that he was never notified of the ADRB decision in his case.  Notwithstanding the lack of official notification, the record shows that the ADRB properly considered the applicant’s request and published its results on 9 December 1996.  A copy of the ADRB decisional document is enclosed for the applicant’s information and use.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, 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.  Further, the Board finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, it concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.

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

WTM___  __TAP__  __SLP _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.