MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030754

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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:  That his Narrative Reason for Discharge be changed from unsatisfactory performance to a Hardship Discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he spoke with his superior officers prior to his discharge and they had full knowledge of the hardship he was experiencing.  He states that he had a severe loss of vision and hearing and he was assured that his discharge would not affect his benefits.

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

On 22 December 1980, the applicant underwent a medical examination for the purpose of enlistment in the Army.  At the time of his examination, he was found to have defective distant vision and unilateral high frequency loss of his left ear, however, he was found to be qualified for enlistment in the Army.

On 30 June 1981, he enlisted in the Army for four years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a personnel administration specialist.  On 30 December 1981, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-2.

The applicant was counseled on 27 January 1982 for failure to repair.  He was informed that he would perform extra duty for the following 15 days.  He was counseled again on 22 February 1982 for failure to repair.  He was advised that actions of that nature could result in punitive action under the UCMJ.  On 2 April 1982, he was counseled because his room was found to be disorderly and dirty. He was ordered to clean his room and his locker immediately and to be ready for inspection.  He was also told improvement in his attitude, initiative, willingness to accomplish tasks and overall basic soldiering was needed and that if he failed to accomplish these tasks he would be punished under the UCMJ.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 22 April 1982 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 13 April, 14 April and 15 April 1982.  His punishment consisted of extra duty.

On 29 April 1982, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at 0600 and 0730 on 22 April 1982.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

He had NJP imposed against him on 10 May 1982 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 1 May and 2 May 1982.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 4 March 1983, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.

On the same day, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance had been initiated.  The commander cited apathy, defective attitude and an inability to expend effort constructively as the reason for his recommendation for discharge.  On 17 March 1983, he acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 29 March 1983, NJP was imposed against the applicant for possession of marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 30 March 1983.  Accordingly, on 11 April 1983, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 12 days of total active service and he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change in his Narrative Reason for Separation within that board’s 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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record.  The record clearly shows that he was counseled and he had NJP imposed against his numerous times as a result of unsatisfactory performance and there is no evidence of record to support his contention that his unsatisfactory performance was the result of his defective vision or unilateral high frequency hearing loss.  His unsatisfactory performance is appropriately reflected throughout.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___ja ___  ___tsk___  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030754	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/04/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	572	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  713	144.7110/A71.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.