MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080744

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II		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 joined the Army in July 1983 and the majority of his term of service is marked by commendations and promotions.  He states that his GD does not reflect the overall quality of his service, which he believes warrants an HD.  He states his post service accomplishments include a  stellar career as a medical technician that speaks highly of his character and maturity.  Finally, he states that during his time in service he was never given ample opportunity to demonstrate his potential to his chain of command.  

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

On 20 July 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) and the basic airborne course.  Upon completion of his training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman) with the special qualification identifier (SQI) of P (Parachutist).  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was specialist four/E-4.  

The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 5 September 1985, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and using disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of 7 days pay, reduction to pay grade E-3, and 7 days confinement in the Correctional Custody Facility (CCF).  

In addition, the applicant was formally counseled by members of his chain of command twice for his bad attitude, disrespect towards soldiers of higher rank, disobeying a lawful order, improvement of his attitude, and demonstrating the proper respect to soldiers senior in rank.  In addition, on 2 October 1985, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  

On 12 September 1985, while assigned to the CCF, the applicant  was declared a rehabilitation failure by the Commandant of the CCF, after all the efforts made to retrain and rehabilitate him were unsuccessful.  The Commandant also recommended that serious consideration be given to processing the applicant for separation from the Army. 

On 8 October 1985, 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 unit commander cited the applicant’s history of unsatisfactory performance, his 5 September 1985 NJP, and the recommendation of the CCF Commandant as the reasons he initiated separation action. 

The applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a GD, and on 23 October 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months, and 
4 days of creditable active military service.  

There is no evidence showing 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 the overall quality of his service and because he was never allowed to demonstrate his potential to his chain of command.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance as a soldier based on his failure to meet the Army’s acceptable standards for personal conduct and performance of duty.  His discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and his discharge accurately reflects his overall quality of service.  

3.  The Board also considered the applicant’s post service conduct and accomplishment, but found this factor was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. 

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

__RVO__  __GJW  _  __ RJO  __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080744	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19851023	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4900	
2.	144.9211	
3.	144.9203	
4.		
5.		
6.