MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034518

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the Board should consider upgrading his discharge because he has a wife and three kids and is trying to enroll himself in school and get his VA benefits squared away.

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

He enlisted in Atlanta, Georgia on 15 March 1989 for a period of 3 years under the airborne enlistment option.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for duty as a MANPADS crewmember on 5 October 1989. 

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 15 September 1991 and he reenlisted on 15 November 1991 for a period of 4 years. 

On 19 August 1992 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.   His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay (suspended) and restriction and extra duty.

On 2 September 1992 nonjudicial punishment was again imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction.

On 20 October 1992 the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous (at least 36) counseling sessions regarding his failure to go to his place of duty, writing bad checks, disobeying orders, failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test, and his appearance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 30 October 1992 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 5 November 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 3 years, 7 months, and 21 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge citing essentially the same reasons as he has cited to this Board.  The ADRB determined that he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his request on 17 March 2000.

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 their command 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.  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 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 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___  ____ew__  ___js____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034518	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/11/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	572	
BOARD DECISION	 DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.4900	572/A49.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.