Author: CoopeWL

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR1999032842
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            23 March 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032842

	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.

| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | | Chairperson
| Mr. Roger Able | | Member
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | | 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: In effect, that he would like his discharge upgraded, so that he may receive his Veterans status and benefits. 

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

On 6 November 1984, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and 17 weeks. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade
E-3.

The applicant’s record indicates that he was counseled on numerous occasions for failure to repair, for his negative attitude and for unsatisfactory duty performance. 

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings. 

On 18 June 1985, 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 of duty.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s negative attitude, unsatisfactory performance and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 28 June 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  On 16 July 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He had completed 8 months and 11 days of creditable active service.  

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. 

On 29 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

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

4.  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

__slp___  ___ra___  __jea___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID | AR1999032842
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20000323
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850716
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter13 .  .  .  .  .
DISCHARGE REASON | A49.00
BOARD DECISION | (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 144.4900
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |