MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064192

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 an honorable discharge and that his Reenlistment (RE) Code be changed to a more favorable code.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time he was being processed for discharge for unsatisfactory performance, he was informed that he would have to wait for at least 6 months before he could again enlist.  However, after waiting 6 months, he went to an Army recruiter and was informed that he could never again enlist because of his RE Codes.  He goes on to state that he attempted several times over the past 15 years to enlist and it was not until 27 September 2001, that he was able to enlist in the Army National Guard.  He continues by stating that he discovered that he could have enlisted before he got too old to enlist in the Regular Army had he not been misinformed and had the recruiters not been too lazy to process the paperwork.  He further states that he has unjustly been required to suffer the shame of having a discharge for unsatisfactory performance and has been denied the opportunity to serve for 15 years and desires to have that shame removed. 

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

He enlisted on 6 November 1984, for a period of 3 years, training as a medical specialist and assignment to Europe.  He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 13 May 1985.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 7 January 1986.  He was deemed to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

On 11 February 1986, 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-2, extra duty and restriction.

On 12 February 1986, the applicant submitted a request for early return of his dependent wife to the United States, due to family and marital problems.  His request was approved on 13 February 1986.

On 14 February 1986, he underwent a medical and physical examination for the purpose of administrative discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  His Report of Medical History (Standard Form 93) indicates that the applicant had a recent suicide attempt (gesture) due to emotional stress and was evaluated by a psychiatrist.

The applicant’s commander initiated action on 28 February 1986, to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He informed the applicant that the basis for his recommendation was evidenced by his (the applicant’s) displayed pattern of unsatisfactory performance, coupled with his recalcitrance towards rehabilitation.  After refusing to consult with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge and that he understood that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), or this Board, for an upgrade of his discharge.  He further acknowledged that he understood that he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 11 March 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year, 4 months and 6 days of total active service and was issued RE Codes of 3 and 3C.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge under that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 his 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 this 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 therefore were appropriate, considering all of the facts of the case.
4.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.  Additionally, he has provided no basis to change his RE Codes, which were properly issued in accordance with the applicable regulations.

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

__gp____  __tap ___  __mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064192	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/03/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  572	144.4900/A49.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.