MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           5 September 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074735

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant submitted no statement in his own behalf.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 26 November 1984.

He completed basic and advanced training and was assigned military occupational specialty 13B10, Cannon Crewman.

On 24 July 1985, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay for 1 month, 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty.

He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 1 August 1985.

On 3 September 1985, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  The applicant received counseling and no punishment was given.

On 25 October 1985, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.

On 19 November 1985, his commander initiated a bar to enlistment based on the applicant’s record of nonjudicial punishment and other relevant indicators of untrainability or unsuitability.

On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 12 February 1986, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana, between the period 20 October through 29 October 1985.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.

On 27 November 1985, a Report of Mental Evaluation cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 7 January 1986, his commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance.  

On the same day, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed discharge action.  Through counsel he waived his rights to a hearing by a board of officers, elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and acknowledged he understood the effects of this type of discharge.

He was separated on 4 April 1986, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance and issued a general discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 3 months and 9 days total active service.

There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative 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.  

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his request and in view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his type of discharge was too severe.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all 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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072093	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020908	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.