MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002079579

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Paul M. Smith		Member	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		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 he completed 2 years and 4 months of creditable service.  However, due to the incompatibility of his acting commanding officer and himself, it led to his discharge from the service, which he now knows, was an injustice to him and the US Army. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 9 February 1984, as a combat telecommunications center operator.

Between 18 September 1984 and 2 January 1986, he received nine counseling statements for speeding, failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions, not conforming to standards, disobeying a lawful order on two occasions, and for failure to return to his appointed place of duty on three occasions.

The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-3 effective 1 January 1985.

He was barred from reenlistment on 10 February 1986.

On 19 February 1986, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-2 (suspended), and 14 days restriction and extra duty. 

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 2 April 1986, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 3 April 1986, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to obey a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-1, and 14 days restriction and extra duty. 

On 14 April 1986, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay and  45 days restriction and extra duty. 

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 16 April 1986, and was found qualified for separation.

On 29 May 1986, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s numerous counseling statements, three article 15s, bar to reenlistment, and poor duty performance.  The applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 30 May 1986, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

On 2 June 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 10 June 1986.  He had a total of 2 years,
4 months, and 2 days of creditable service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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 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.  The Board noted the applicant’s extensive record of numerous counseling statements, three Article 15s, bar to reenlist, and use of poor judgement.  In view of these offenses and his undistinguished record of service, the Board determined that he was properly discharged and there was no inequity or injustice, which warranted upgrading his discharge.

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 for that separation were
appropriate considering all of 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 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

__jl___  ___ps___  __jp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079579	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030603	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860610	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200, chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	191/360	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.