MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:             2 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999030602

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 made mistakes in the military and now that he is older he realizes it.  He has held good jobs subsequent to his discharge and would like his discharge upgraded.  He has enclosed a copy of his resume in support of his application. 

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

On 10 March 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri in May 1982 and was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia to attend advanced individual training (AIT). 

He attended AIT at Fort Gordon for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) O5C (Radio Teletype Operator) but did not complete the course.  He was then assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas for training in MOS 16P (Short Range Missile Crewman), which he also did not complete.  Finally, he was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia to attend AIT in MOS 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist), which he successfully completed in March 1983.  He was then awarded MOS 76C and was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia to attend the basic airborne course, which he successfully completed in April 1983. 

Upon the completion of his training he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for his first permanent duty station.  The record shows that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3, and there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition on file.  There is an extensive disciplinary history contained in the record.  This includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on three separate occasions, extensive formal counseling, and a bar to reenlistment action.  

On 14 December 1982, the applicant accepted NJP for assaulting another soldier.  He punishment for this offense included a reduction in rank to private/
E-1, a forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 2 months, and 15 days of restriction and extra duty.  On 25 July 1983, he accepted NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty, for which he was punished with 14 days of extra duty.  On 14 October 1983, he again accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment for this offense included a reduction to the rank of private/E-1, a forfeiture of $133.00, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 17 October 1983, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated, under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The commander cited the applicant’s sub-standard performance, as evidenced by his repeatedly missing formations, lack of cooperation, failure to follow instructions, and his lack of care for personal equipment, as the basis for taking the action.  The commander also commented that the applicant had no motivation or desire to improve himself or perform at his job, and had failed to respond to repeated counseling by his superiors.  

On 20 October 1983, the applicant was barred from reenlistment based on his poor conduct and duty performance.  The applicant’s record of NJP punishment and formal counseling was used as a basis for the action.

On 28 October 1983, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, and he completed his election of rights.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement, he commented that he wished to stay in the Army because things were heating up around the world and he wanted to fight for his country.  He also stated that he knew he had not been performing well since his assignment to Fort Bragg, but that was because he had experienced some personal problems. 

On 2 November 1983, the appropriate authority approved the requested separation action on the applicant and directed that he discharged and his service be characterized as under honorable conditions.  Accordingly, on 
18 November 1983, the applicant was separated with a GD after completing 
1 year, 8 months, and 9 days of active military service. 

There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge, within the 15 year statute of limitations. 

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 acknowledges the applicant’s successful transition to civilian life and his work accomplishments, as outlined in the documents with his application. However, in review of his entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Therefore, the Board concluded an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge is not warranted.

2.  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.

3.  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

_esc____  __kan____  __sk___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030602	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/11/18	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.