MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082037

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he completed all but two weeks of his term of enlistment, and the awards that he received during his active duty tenure warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).

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

On 2 July 1979, the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  
He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B 
(Light Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).  During his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

The applicant’s record contains an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following five separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  28 January 1980, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 9 April 1980, for being derelict in the performance of his duty as the company charge of quarters runner; 2 April 1981, for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer; 11 December 1982, for disorderly conduct; and 8 April 1983, for disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.  In addition, he was formally counseled by members of his chain of command for indebtedness.

On 16 May 1983, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s failure to execute the duties of a soldier, and the fact that five NJP actions for misconduct and performance counseling had failed to improve his performance of duty.

On 18 May 1983, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  However, he failed to submit his statement within the required 7 days, which constituted a waiver of this right.  

On 3 June 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD.  On 16 June 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years, 11 months, and 15 days of active military 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 statue 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 notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on his overall record of honorable service, as evidenced by his receiving the ARCOM and the AGCM.  However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance and acts of misconduct, as evidenced by his disciplinary and counseling record.  In the opinion of the Board, his disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting an HD.  Therefore, the Board concludes that his GD accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and that the requested relief is not warranted in this 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

__JNS__  __  MHM _  __ JTM  __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082037	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830616	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	149.400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.