MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:   15 July 1999                           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022612

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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 the narrative reason for his general discharge (GD) be changed from unsatisfactory performance to reflect that he had a mental disorder.

APPLICANT STATES:  He feels that mitigating circumstances led to his inability to perform his duties.  He was under extreme mental stress due to his wife's infidelity.  He sought counsel from his chain of command and from the battalion chaplain.  He was almost pushed to the point of committing murder.  

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

On 11 October 1988, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Drum, New York.

On 16 October 1989, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, and 
14 days extra duty. 

Between January and October 1989, the applicant was counseled repeatedly concerning his job performance, for lack of motivation, for lack of attention to detail, for failure to repair (numerous times), for failure to follow instructions, for lack of responsibility, for lack of self discipline, for lack of maturity, for driving his privately owned vehicle without the proper insurance, or registration, and for lying to his chain of command.   

On 24 October 1989, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD.  He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.

On 24 October 1989, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent to separate him.  He waived further consultation with legal counsel.  He was not entitled to have his case considered by a board of officers. His record does not contain a statement that was submitted in his own behalf. 

On 25 October 1989, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation in connection with the separation action.  His history of poor duty performance, marital problems, indebtedness, and difficulty in resolving personal problems was noted.  He was diagnosed to have an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and disturbance of conduct.  Further, he was diagnosed as being capable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law.  He met retention standards and was cleared for separation.

On 31 October 1989, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD under honorable conditions. 
The approving authority stated in a memorandum for record that he personally spoke with the applicant and with the applicant's commander and determined that the pending separation action was justified due to the applicant's continued pattern of unsatisfactory performance after he was repeatedly counseled and assisted.  He felt that the applicant would never become productive enough to continue to serve.

On 14 November 1989, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD. He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 4 days of creditable active service and had no recorded lost time.

In connection with his application, the Medical Advisor to the Board, opined (COPY ATTACHED), in essence, that a complete and careful review of all available medical records does not elicit any medical or psychiatric diagnosis that would preclude the applicant from performing his assigned duties of rank and position.  The case does not meet the standards of referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) under the provisions of Army Regulation 4050, paragraph 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, or 3-34.  Therefore, there is no medical reason to change the discharge.

The above advisory opinion was referred to the applicant for comment or rebuttal, but he failed to respond.

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 16 December 1991, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge from a GD to an HD.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 Board considered the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the mitigating factors submitted by the applicant.  The Board notes that there were other legitimate avenues that he could have pursued in getting assistance with his personal problems. 

4.  There is nothing in the applicant's record and he has provided nothing that indicates he had a medical condition that impaired his ability to serve.

5.  The applicant was provided many opportunities by his chain of command to improve his performance prior to being discharged, to which he failed to respond. 

6.   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

GDP____  JLP_____  DW_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022612	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990715	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19891114	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON	For Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	A40.00	
2.	A93.07	
3.	A93.23	
4.		
5.		
6.