MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  29 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015563

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Theodore G. Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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:  Upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge and removal of the offensive language.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the punishment was too harsh; that he was a good soldier, promoted to specialist (SPC) and served 4 years including a tour of duty in Germany; and that his former spouse caused his imprudent behavior.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that on the basis of equity and propriety, the Board should closely examine the applicant’s exemplary service from 1974 to 1976; and that the Board should also examine his efficiency reports that also show performance improvements in many rated areas.

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

He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 1972 for a period of 
3 years and reenlisted on 12 August 1974 for a second 3-year period of service.  
He successfully completed his initial military occupation specialty training (MOS) training in 13A, cannoneer and also served 5 months in MOS 95B, military policeman.  His highest attained rank was SPC.

His record shows that non judicial punishment was imposed against him 3 times between October 1974 and May 1976 for being drunk while on duty as charge of quarters, 3 days of AWOL and failure to return to his place of duty.  His punishments included 3 suspended reductions to private first class, 2 forfeitures of pay totaling $125.00, a total of 42 days of extra duty, 14 days of restriction, and a verbal reprimand.

Between September 1975 and December 1976 he was formally counseled 
8 times for numerous instances of indiscipline including failing to return to work; being absent from his place of duty (3 times); being late for work; not honoring his just debts (twice); numerous dishonored checks; disobedience; poor military appearance; being under the influence of alcohol while on duty; assault on his spouse and another soldier; and bankruptcy proceedings.

His records contained a number of the originals and photocopies of the dishonored checks and most were written and signed by him.

The 5 efficiency reports contained in his records generally described, overall, duty performance ranging from below average to average.   

In December 1976, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Chapter 13 for apathy.  His commander formally counseled him regarding these proceedings on 6 December 1976.

His DD Form 214, separation document, indicated that he was separated under honorable conditions on 15 December 1976 for unsuitability-apathy, defective 
attitude or inability to expend effort constructively in accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 13.  He had completed 4 years, 1 month and 3 days of creditable service with 3 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that
time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph 13-5 b (3) provided for the separation of individuals whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant had an apathetic attitude and behavior manifested in his lack of self-discipline, financial irresponsibility and overall substandard performance, which his chain of command properly determined, was unsuited for further military service. 

2.  The Board could not find anything in the evidence of record including his efficiency reports as indicated by counsel that sufficiently mitigated his overall record of service to warrant an upgrade to a fully honorable discharge.

3.  His administrative separation by Chapter 13 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__FE___  ___TP___  ___MW__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015563	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990929	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUITABILITY-APATHY	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.