MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200206820

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant makes no statement and submits no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1981.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 17K (Ground Surveillance Radar Crewman).

On 3 February 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for breaching the peace by engaging in a fistfight with another soldier.

On 15 May 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for operating a vehicle while drunk.

On 17 November 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  

On 17 November 1984, the applicant waived consulting counsel and waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and personal appearance before such a board.  It cannot be determined whether or not he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, none is available.  

On 26 November 1984, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 29 November 1984, the applicant's commander formally recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  He noted the applicant's behavior had been inconsistent with the standards and requirements of the Army.  Administrative actions included both informal and formal counseling.  Disciplinary actions included a summarized Article 15 for breaching the peace and fighting and a field grade Article 15 for driving while intoxicated.  The applicant had also been charged with possession of a controlled substance on 4 September 1984.  On a separate, undated document (it cannot be determined if the document was part of the recommendation for separation or was related to the applicant's disqualification for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal), the commander had stated that the applicant had the potential to be a good soldier but allowed personal problems to interfere with his duty performance.

On 13 December 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a General under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

On 5 February 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge.  He had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 2 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

Army Regulation 635-200 states that issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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 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.

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.  His record of disciplinary actions does not warrant a characterization of service of fully honorable.

3.  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

_ _FNE  _  __SLP__  ___EJA__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076820	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/02/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.