MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:  15 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034234

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Orville W. Troesch		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  That his general discharge be changed to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs an honorable discharge to receive the education benefits he enlisted for.  He really wanted to be in the combat arms but had to enlist as a cook.  He was denied emergency leave while in Saudi Arabia when his grandfather died.  He was held even longer than the other soldiers just to turn in equipment.  Some of the other cook teams received Army Commendation Medals but he received nothing.  He felt discriminated against.  He served his country honorably in wartime.

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

He enlisted for three years for training as a food service specialist with airborne training.  He entered active duty on 6 October 1989 and completed basic airborne training and training as a food service specialist.  He was assigned as a food service specialist to an airborne field artillery battery.  He deployed with his unit and participated in Operation Desert Storm from 27 August 1990 to 12 April 1991.  The applicant was promoted to grade E-3 effective 1 March 1991.

The available records show that beginning in October 1991, the applicant began to receive numerous statements of counseling from his unit supervisors and unit commander.  The counselings included dirty uniform, not following food preparation instructions, failure to maintain Army weight control standards, and absent from place of duty.  On 29 August 1991, he was entered in a weight control program and a bar to reenlistment was imposed.

On 5 November and 5 December 1991, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for damage to government property and walking the 3rd floor ledge of the barracks.  On 23 January 1992, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 29 days AWOL.  The punishment imposed included reduction to grade E-1.

Also in the available record is a state magistrate’s order that revoked the applicant’s driver’s license for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while impaired.  His blood alcohol content was recorded as .17 with .10 being above the legal limit.  There is no evidence of further action taken by the unit commander.

On 2 March 1992, the applicant was informed of the commander’s intent to recommended separation for unsatisfactory performance.  After consulting with legal counsel the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might receive a general discharge if separation was approved.

The separation authority approved the request and directed issuance of a general discharge.  Effective 7 April 1992, the applicant was separated under the authority of AR 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He had 2 years, 5 months, and 2 days creditable service and 29 days lost time.

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.  It 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.  A general discharge is normally considered appropriate although an honorable discharge may be issued for meritorious reasons.

The applicant’s enlistment documents include a form for veteran’s educational assistance that he signed.  On that form he acknowledged that, for his first 12 months of service, his pay would be reduced by $100 a month and it could not be refunded, suspended, or stopped.  It further stated that he must complete 3 years of active duty and must receive an honorable discharge for entitlement to this educational assistance.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant was entitled to or denied emergency leave while in Saudi Arabia, that he was denied any awards, or that he was discriminated against.  When provided the opportunity to submit a statement on his own behalf during the separation process he declined.

On 15 September 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB noted in their denial that the applicant’s personal conduct and performance was not consistent with other soldiers who successfully completed military service and received an honorable 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.  The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  However neither the evidence of record or that submitted by the applicant support the contentions.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized based on the nature of his offenses.

2.  The applicant had been punished under Article 15, UCMJ on three occasions, was barred from reenlistment under the weight control program, was AWOL for 29 days, and had his driver’s license revoked for driving while impaired.  There were no mitigating circumstances for this level of misconduct.

3.  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.

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

__OT___  ___MT__  ___KN__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034234	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000615	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920407	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.