MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030003

	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.

	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was falsified to get him out and that 
his original discharge does not show what he actually signed for.

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

On 1 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years with
3 years of prior service.  He completed the required training and was awarded
the military occupational specialty (Multichannel Communications Equipment Operator (31M)).  He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 24 March 1980 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 25 March 1980.

Between December 1980 and November 1981, the applicant accepted four 
nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, failure to repair, and for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction and extra duty.

On 17 November 1981, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which diagnosed the applicant as having an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct, and a delayed post-traumatic stress disorder secondary to his Vietnam combat experiences.  The psychiatrist evaluation also indicated that the applicant’s impairment in occupational functioning is not likely to change as a rest of performance counseling by his supervisor, or as a result of psychotherapy.  He further indicated that if the applicant’s current level of functioning is not acceptable, recommend that the applicant be discharged through administrative channels and that the applicant was cleared for administrative action under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.

On 16  June 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability-apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived
consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 18 June 1982, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  
The commander’s recommendation was based on the disciplinary action against the applicant and the applicant’s lack of potential to develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 29 June 1982 for the aforementioned offenses.

On 16 July 1982, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 26 July 1982.  He had a total of 10 years, 
1 months, and 26 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharged 9 August 1983.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 5 February 1985.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph
13-4c provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record.

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 noted the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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 the aforementioned 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:

_RVO___  SK_____  LE______  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030003	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820726	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C, 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.