CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART II - APPLICATION DATA
(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)

1.  Type of discharge (or characterization of service):  GD                  

2.  Date of discharge (or REFRAD):  891101                                     

3.  Authority for separation:

	a.  Regulation:  Chapter 13, AR 635-200

	b.  Reason:	Unsatisfactory Performance
                           
4.  Prior review(s):  ( X ) NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

1.	Service data:                              2.  Awards and decorations:
                                               ( X ) NONE
a.  Period entered for:  6 Years               
b.  Entry date:  870730                        
c.  Age:  31 Years   DOB:  561128                                       
d.  Educational level:  HS Grad                                      
e.  Aptitude area scores:  
	    GT:  105                               3.  Highest grade achieved:
    f.  Actual creditable service:  1 Year             
        3 Months  1 Day                            Grade    
                                                   E-5        

                                               4.  Performance evaluations:  
                                                   Refer to Official File    

					CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued

5.  Periods of unauthorized absence:  ( X ) NONE

6.  Nonjudicial punishment:

	Date           Offenses
	890427         Disobeyed a lawful order(890330); shouted at a 
                   noncommissioned officer (890330); made a two false official
                   statements (890309 and 890330).

7.  Court-Martial data:  ( X ) NONE

8.	Remarks:  Letter of Reprimand dated 890725.

SECTION B - Other Service Data

1.  Other discharge(s):

    Service      From      Through      Type 
	RA           810529    841025       HD
	RA           841026    870729       HD

	CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW
SECTION A - Analyst's Assessment

1.  Summary of facts and circumstances concerning discharge:

    890928:  Unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation 
             action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, unsatisfactory
             performance.  He was advised of his rights.
    891002:  Applicant acknowledged notification, consulted legal counsel and 
             declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
    891010:  Unit commander recommended approval for a general discharge.
    891010:  Separation authority approved separation with a general discharge.
    891101:  Applicant was discharged.

2.  Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity on DD Form 293 or incorporated by reference:
	As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.

3.  Exhibit(s) submitted:

	A-1:  DD Form 293, dated 961121.

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW
SECTION B - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion
( X ) NONE

PART V - SUMMARY OF REVIEW HEARING

1.  Review/hearing information:

	a.  Applicant testified:    (   ) Yes   ( X ) No

	b.  Witness(es) testified:  (   ) Yes   ( X ) No

2.  Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:  ( X ) NONE

	CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART V HEARING SUMMARY
SECTION B-Case Analyst’s Summary

1.  APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be recharacterized to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

2.  APPLICANT CONTENDS:  The applicant stated in effect, that he had Huntington’s Disease which effected his behavior and contributed to his problems.

3.  COUNSEL CONTENDS:  (1)  Huntington’s Disease diminished the applicant’s ability to serve.  (2)  The applicant’s overall service is deserving of a fully honorable discharge.  (3)  The applicant was not provided adequate opportunity for rehabilitation.

4.  SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  The applicant successfully completed two previous periods of enlistment, from  29 May 1981 through 25 January 1984, and from 26 October 1984 through 29 July 1987.  On 30 July 1987 the applicant reenlisted for 6 years, in pay grade E-5.  He was a 94B (Food Service Specialist).

On 25 July 1988, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for missing a Mental Health Clinic appointment (22 July 1988).  On 27 April 1989, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order (30 March 1989); for shouting at a noncommissioned officer (30 March 1989); and for making false official statements on two different occasions (9 March 1989 and 30 March 1989).  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-4; forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 2 months; and 45 days extra duty and restriction.

Between April 1988 and November 1989, the applicant was counseled numerous times, most concerning deficiencies that could lead to separation.  He was counseled for not paying attention to detail, for being late for duty on more than one occasion, for not following instructions, for not properly maintaining his equipment, for disobeying his supervisor, and for unprofessional behavior.

On 28 September 1989, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a GD. On 1 November 1989, the applicant was separated with a GD.  He had accrued a total of 8 years, 4 months, and 29 days of creditable service and 3 days lost time from a previous period of enlistment.

5.  LEGAL/REGULATORY BASIS FOR SEPARATION:

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.

6.  ISSUES OF PROPRIETY:  The applicant presented no issues of propriety.

7.  ISSUES OF EQUITY:  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record and he has submitted none that would corroborate his allegation that Huntington’s Disease contributed to his behavioral problems.  On 28 September 1989, the applicant authenticated a statement with his own signature which indicated that he had 
under gone a complete medical and physical examination.  The examinations are not contained in his official record.

				CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1.  a.  Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:
	    ( X )	Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A, Paragraph 2.
	    (   )	Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows:
	    (   )	Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:

    b.  Request:  ( X ) Recharacterization    (   ) Change of Reason

2.  Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity:

	a.  Propriety:	The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge. 

	b.  Equity:	The parenthetical numbers below corresponds to the issue numbers on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above.

        (1)  The issue is rejected.  The applicant received a mental evaluation and a physical examination by competent medical authorities prior to separation.  There is no evidence available that indicates he had a medical condition that would have affected his ability to serve.  Before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies which lead to his separation.  The Board noted the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory soldier.  The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct and poor duty performance.   The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.

3.  Response to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s):  ( X ) NA

			CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote

1.	Board conclusion(s):

	The discharge was:

	( X )	Proper.
	(   )	Improper as to characterization.  Change characterization to                                     .
	(   )	Improper as to reason.  Change reason to                         under                      .
	( X )	Equitable.
	(   )	Inequitable as to characterization.  Change characterization to                               .
	(   )	Inequitable as to reason.  Change reason to                        
		under                                 .
	(   )	Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                         .

2.  Voting record:      Change   No Change
	            Reason       0         5  
    Characterization       0         5   

	  The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below.  The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document.

                  Army Review Boards Agency
                  ATTN:  Promulgation Team
                  1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor
                  Arlington, VA  22202-4508

3.  Minority views:  ( X ) NA

				CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication

Case report reviewed and verified	

MS. CHANDLER                
Case Analyst and Reviewing Official	

PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE

(X) NONE

SECTION B - CERTIFICATION

Approval Authority:

WILLIAM E. MATHEWS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
   Review Board

Official:

JIMMY R. WYRICK
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge                  C - Other 
B - Material submitted by applicant                  	

INDEX RECORD:

AD9701612         980422   GD    891101    AR 635-200   C13  A4900    NC 5-0A
1          10 11 12        18    20        26                41      46 49 52

                 A0113   A9217   A9321                       
                 53      58      63                                    

REMARKS
Case Management Data

( X ) Notify inquiries clerk.  Response to other correspondence required upon completion of case.

(   ) Escalated mode of hearing.  Applicant is entitled to another review only if he/she/authorized representative appears before a hearing panel.  If there is no response to notification letter or applicant/representative fails to appear for the hearing, the case will be returned to the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) without action.

(   ) DD Form 149 in file.  Send case to ABCMR.

			CASE NO:  AD97-01612

PART IX - VOTING RECORD

	Name                                Reason         Characterization
							CHANGE NC      HON  UHC  NC  UNCHAR

    1.  LTC WYRICK, JIMMY R.        MBR          X                 X       

    2.  LTC WALKER, SUZANNE		MBR          X                _X_   ___  

    3.  COL SHATZER, WILSON A.      MBR          X                _X_   ___  

    4.  COL MILLER, JOEL D.         MBR          X                 X       

    5.  COL JACKSON, MICHAEL H.     PO           X                 X