MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076077

	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:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  That his discharge was based on his failure to lose weight and the accusation that he was coming to work intoxicated.

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

He enlisted on 28 July 1992, for a period of 4 years and training as a veterinary food inspection specialist.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Eustis, Virginia, on 28 December 1992.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 28 January 1993.

In February 1993, he began to receive counseling from his supervisor for writing bad checks and was informed that his identification card would be over-stamped if the activity occurred again. 

On 10 February 1993, his chain of command supported the applicant’s request for an Army Emergency Relief (AER) loan and directed him to enroll in the Army Community Services financial management class.

He was counseled on 26 February 1993, regarding his work being incomplete and not being assigned to the night shift until such time as he became better trained and proficient in his duties.

He was counseled on 5 March 1993, for being overweight and on 26 March 1993, for being involved in a domestic dispute with his wife, which resulted in him being placed in the barracks and enrolled in the Family Advocacy Council (FAC) Program.

He was counseled on 9 April 1993, for failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and for missing two appointments with the FAC counselor.  He was counseled again on 21 April 1993, for not being at work on time and on 29 April 1993, for failing the APFT and being enrolled in a special physical training program.

He continued to be counseled from 7 May 1993 through August 1993 for his failure to report as directed, failure to go to his place of duty, failure to pay debts, dishonored checks, entry into the weight control program, physical fitness failures, his failure to show up for scheduled appointments, fighting, domestic disputes and showing up for work in an intoxicated state.  

He was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program on 26 July 1993.

On 29 November 1993, the applicant was command referred for a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.

On 30 November 1993, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty and for being derelict in the performance of his duties.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, extra duty and an oral reprimand.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On 15 December 1993, the applicant’s commander initiated 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 poor duty performance, failure to report, repeated alleged spouse abuse, his entry into the weight control program, letters of indebtedness, and previous alcohol related incidents.

After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

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

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 January 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year, 5 months and 16 days of total active service.

On 22 January 2002, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He contended that his discharge was inequitable because the incidents that served as the basis for his discharge were minor and did not warrant his discharge, and especially nothing less than an honorable discharge.  He further stated that he had been a model citizen in the community working as a drill instructor with a local boot camp for troubled youths. The ADRB determined that the quality of his service was diminished by the disruptive nature of his offenses and the time the command dedicated to resolving his problems.  Accordingly, his discharge was appropriate because his conduct was not consistent with the Army’s standards for military personnel.  The ADRB voted unanimously to deny his application on 10 July 2002. 

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, an honorable discharge may be issued in meritorious cases. 

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 applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

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 this 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

___mvt__  ___jhl ___  __rtd____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076077	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1994/01/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR2002076077	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  730	144.7800/A78.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.