MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 May 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002066394

         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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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: That he did not receive advanced individual training (AIT), only on the job training (OJT). He contends that three of the eight weeks of OJT training, he was working on oil supply pipe line. He states that he did try to go to supply school but was denied the school because of a shortage of people. He contends that he was not permitted to say one word in his defense and when he was processed for the chapter 13 discharge, he only had three days left before his expiration term of service. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 19 October 2001, wherein he states that he needs his discharge upgraded to honorable to allow him to enlist in the Active Guard Reserve; a DD Form 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) covering the period April 2000 to April 2001; four character reference letters and copies of his discharge proceedings under chapter 13.

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

The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 25 July 1974 for a period of 6 years under the delayed entry program. He entered active duty on
15 August 1974 for a period of 2 years.

The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows that he successfully completed basic combat training. He was subsequently assigned to Company F, 2nd Battalion, U.S. Army Quartermaster School, at Fort Lee, Virginia, and was then attached to the 276th Quartermaster Company at Fort Lee, Virginia, for the purpose of OJT in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y20 (unit and organizational supply specialist). He completed his OJT effective 28 February 1975 and was subsequently reassigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to work in his MOS of 76Y20.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 12 August 1976. He reenlisted on 13 August 1976 for a period of 4 years.

On 5 January 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty.

On 14 February 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

The applicant reenlisted on 15 May 1980 for a period of 3 years.

On 27 May 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for possessing marijuana. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended until 27 November 1982), a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 7 December 1982, the applicant was relieved from his duties as unit supply sergeant for unsatisfactory performance.

On 14 February 1983, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant.

On 5 April 1983, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The unit commander based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s inability to effectively execute his assigned tasks as demanded by his duty military occupational specialty. He recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 5 April 1983, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited that the applicant performed poorly in the past despite repeated counseling. This recommendation also shows that the applicant was counseled on 11 occasions in reference to his unsatisfactory duty performance.

On 5 April 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case before a board of officers.

On 10 May 1983, the applicant appeared before a board of officers and noncommissioned officers to determine whether he should be discharged from the service due to unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s administrative proceedings indicate that he declined to invoke his right to challenge any of the board members during the proceedings. The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

On 11 May 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation by the board and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 May 1983 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had served 8 years, 9 months and 19 days of total active service.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 applicant’s contention that he did not receive AIT, only OJT, is supported by the evidence of record.

2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was not permitted to say one word in his defense. However, his administrative proceedings indicate that he declined to invoke his right to challenge any of the board members during the proceedings.

3. 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.

4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service during his current enlistment which included one nonjudicial punishment for possession of marijuana, 11 counseling statements due to unsatisfactory performance and a bar to reenlistment and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
6. 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.

7. 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

MHM___ KAN_____ DPH_____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066394
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020514
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830513
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.