APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his record be corrected to show he was honorably discharged and that the authority and reason be changed, specifically, item 25 (Separation authority);   26 (separation code); 27 (reentry code); and, 28 (narrative reason for separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 29 April 1991.

APPLICANT STATES:  That (1) he was a victim of racial discrimination; (2) he was experiencing marital problems which the unit personnel completely disregarded and would not afford him the resources to try to prevent his separation and divorce; (3) almost all of his Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EER) (DA Form 2166-7) rated his performance, appearance and abilities at a very high standard, that he set high examples in detail, appearance and leadership for others to follow, and that he should have more responsible positions; (4) he was the only caucasian noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the platoon; and, (5) the unit commander changed his senior rater from a Negro second lieutenant to a white lieutenant, in order to make his EER appear nondiscriminatory.  In support of his allegations, the applicant furnished copies of military documents which mostly reflect his service prior to the period in question (February 1989 until the commander notified him of his intent to recommend his separation) for which his discharge was based.  These documents will be included in his Official Military Personnel File.

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

On 8 February 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded MOS 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-5 effective 1 July 1987.

On 29 September 1988, he received an EER, for the period January-August 1988, which reflected a rating of 84 out of a possible 85.


On 8 February 1989, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for (1) being disrespectful in language to a NCO on 5 January 1989; (2) his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 6 January 1989; (3) dereliction in the performance of his duty on 17 and 23 January 1989, by not securing his tracked vehicle; and, (4) through neglect, missed movement of his unit on 20 January 1989.  His punishment was a forfeiture, extra duty and restriction.

On 16 May 1989, he received an EER, for the period September 1988-April 1989, which reflected a rating of successful (3 of 5) by the senior rater (SR) for both overall performance and potential.  He excelled in only one area.  His overall potential for promotion and/or positions of greater responsibility were shown as “fully capable”.

His EER, for the period May-October 1989, reflected the SR overall performance and potential as only “fair” (4 of 5), while the SR overall potential for promotion was “marginal”.

On 26 September 1990, his EER, for November 1989-August 1990, indicated a SR overall performance and potential as successful (3 of 5).  His overall potential for promotion was “fully capable”.

His EER, for the period September 1990-January 1991, reflected the SR overall performance and potential as only “fair” (4 of 5) and his potential for promotion as “marginal”.  The SR comments were “challenges supervisors in front of subordinates; does not lead subordinates in a positive manner, must resort to “fear” tactics to force them to follow; and, has the potential to be a good leader, if he drastically changes his leadership style”.  Three of the values/NCO responsibilities was shown as “success” while the other two were “needs improvement”.

On 4 February 1991, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.


On 13 March 1991 (sic), the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to recommend his separation, with a general discharge, for unsatisfactory performance and of his rights.

On 21 March 1991, the applicant, with his legal counsel, voluntarily waived consideration of an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon receiving a character of service of no less than honorable.

On 11 April 1991, the commander submitted the request for an discharge, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, based on the applicant’s prior NJP and numerous formal counsellings for (1) having an unsecured vehicle on 2 occasions; (2) missing formations on 2 occasions; (3) his failure to following instructions;   (4) his substandard performance of duty on 6 occasions;   (5) his failure to qualify on the SQT; (6) having a substandard attitude; (7) being a disruptive influence on his fellow soldiers; (8) his failure to be recommended for promotion; (9) his failing the Army Physical Fitness Test; (10) being disrespectful to commissioned officers on        2 occasions; (11) having a substandard appearance on        2 occasions; (12) being disrespectful to a NCO; and      (13) disobeying a lawful order.  He requested the applicant be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate (HDC).

On 11 April 1991, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed an HDC be issued.

On 29 April 1991, the applicant was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-5, under the above cited regulation.  His Report of Separation indicates he had 8 years, 2 months and 22 days of creditable service.

On 20 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request.


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 separation 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 and it is likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur. The characterization of service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant’s allegations that he was a victim of racial prejudice; that his command disregarded and would not afford him the resources to try to prevent his separation and subsequent divorce; that he was the only Caucasian NCO in the platoon; or that his senior rater was changed to make his EER appear to not be discriminatory.

3.  The applicant’s EER’s show a steady decline in his soldiering skills from a rating of 84 of a possible 85 points and being referred to as an exceptional NCO to being a marginal soldier with only fair overall performance and potential and comments like “failed the APFT twice”; “demonstrates no stamina to go the distance on PT”; “constantly arguing and bickering with his superiors”; and “challenges supervisors in front of subordinates”.

4.  Upon review of the applicant’s record, it appears that the command was extremely lenient with him for the many indisciplines for which only a counselling form was initiated.

5.  There is no basis for removal of or changing any of the reentry eligibility code from the items requested by the applicant.

6.  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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director