MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           14 FEBRUARY 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060591

	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	
	Ms. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. John E. Denning		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 records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he asked to be released from the Army he was attempting to reconcile with his wife and a prerequisite for their reconciliation was for him to get out of the Army, which he now realizes was a grave mistake.  Since leaving the military he has been a good citizen and has earned two Bachelor of Science degrees in 2 ½ years while undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia.  He feels that his discharge is hindering his ability to be considered for meaningful work within the U.S. Government.  The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

The applicant re-enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 February 1981, for a period of 4 years.

On 16 August 1982, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 9-12 August 1982.  His punishment included a forfeiture, extra duty, and an oral reprimand.

The applicant had applied for and was accepted for the Warrant Officer Flight Program, with a reporting date of 17 October 1982.  However on 26 August 1982, his commander requested that he be removed from the program because of numerous dishonored checks, letters of indebtedness, and for being AWOL.  

On 25 July 1983, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions, and for being derelict in the performance of his duties.  His punishment was a forfeiture and extra duty.

On 10 November 1983, he accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 28 October to 1 November 1983.  His punishment was a forfeiture and extra duty.

On 15 November 1983, his commander recommended that he be barred from reenlistment.  His commander stated that his conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory, that he had been counseled on numerous occasions for his tardiness and absence from his place of duty.  He noted that a large amount of time had been expended with the applicant for dishonored checks, letters of indebtedness, and that he had received 3 Article 15’s for being AWOL.  

On 15 December 1983, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service for unsatisfactory performance.

On 12 January 1984, a board of officers determined that the applicant’s numerous disciplinary infractions reflected a pattern of misconduct which occurred in groups over a period of time, and probably would continue to occur in the future if he were to be retained.  They indicated his retention would have a negative impact upon discipline, good order and morale within the company.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, with a general discharge certificate.  

On 10 February 1984, the applicant was discharged under the above cited regulation, for unsatisfactory performance.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 6 years, 11 months and 1 day of active service and 7 days of 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, 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.

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 to show that there was an error or injustice in this case.

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.  While the applicant’s contention that he, in effect, became a productive member of society, he does not submit any evidence to support that contention and it would not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and would not provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief.

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

__JNS __  __BJE_  _  __JED __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060591	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020214	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.