MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081199

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		Member	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster		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 and that he be advised of his benefit entitlements.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no evidence or argument in support of his request.

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

He enlisted in St. Louis, Missouri, on 5 August 1980, for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to Fort Carson, Colorado.  He successfully completed his training, was transferred to Fort Carson on 25 November 1980 and was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 5 February 1981.

On 30 June 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty.

On 10 August 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of   E-1 (suspended for 90 days), extra duty and restriction.

On 19 October 1982, NJP 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-1, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days), restriction and extra duty.

On 27 October 1982, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible.

On 3 November 1982, the applicant's commander informed him that he was initiating a recommendation 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 disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions and rehabilitation attempts by the chain of command, his failure to pay his debts, and his overall poor performance and attitude.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 4 January 1983 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 January 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 2 years, 5 months and 10 days of total active service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

The Veterans Administration (Renamed the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1989) was created by Executive Order 5398 dated 21 July 1930, to provide Federal benefits to veterans and their dependents.  It is the second largest of the 14 Cabinet departments and operates nationwide programs of health care, financial assistance and national cemeteries.

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.  Although an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 Board has reviewed the applicant’s records and finds that there are no mitigating factors to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant's service clearly does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. 

4.  In regards to the applicant's request to be advised of his benefit entitlements, the Department of Veterans Affairs administers veterans benefits and the Board has no jurisdiction over that agency.  Accordingly, the applicant should seek information from that agency.

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

__tlp____  __rld____  ___rvo __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081199	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/01/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  730	144.7800/A78.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.