MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 3 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003086395

         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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGann		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was given a medical discharge and was told that it would be upgraded after 6 months. He goes on to state that he has been incarcerated for the last 11 years and is scheduled to be released in a year or so and desires to have an upgraded report of separation (DD Form 214).

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

He enlisted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 10 November 1983 for a period of 3 years and training as a field artillery cannon crewman. He completed his training and remained assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 10 November 1984 and remained at Fort Sill until he was transferred to Germany on 21 May 1985.

On 20 June 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being disrespectful in deportment towards a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) and falsifying a signature on the mess hall headcount sheet. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

On 26 June 1985, the applicant's commander referred him for a psychiatric evaluation. He indicated that immediately upon arrival at the unit, the applicant approached the duty NCO and stated that he wanted to get out. He also indicated that the applicant was continuously late for work and had been in trouble constantly since his arrival. Additionally, he is disrespectful and threatening to his chain of command, does not get along with his supervisors, is a disruptive influence, is extremely explosive and has made no effort to improve his conduct and performance even after repeated counseling.

The examining psychiatrist deemed the applicant to be mentally responsible and cleared him psychiatrically for administrative action as deemed necessary by the command.

On 16 July 1985, the commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. He cited the applicant's disciplinary record, his failure to pay just debts as indicated by his repeatedly writing bad checks, and his continued unsatisfactory performance of duty and conduct, as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf and the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment.

On 18 July 1985, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. After consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He also acknowledged that he understood that could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge and that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for an upgrade of his discharge; however, that did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

The commander initiated the recommendation for discharge citing as his reasons, the applicant's continued unsatisfactory performance and conduct, his disciplinary record, his being disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program, his bar to reenlistment, his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions and his lack of respect for authority.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 9 September 1985 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 October 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had served 1 year, 10 months and 8 days of total active service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute 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 his command when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. There was not then nor is there now any provisions for automatically upgrading such a 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.

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

4. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. Overall, the Board finds that he was afforded many opportunities by his chain of command to be successful and he elected not to take advantage of them. Accordingly, his service does not warrant a fully honorable discharge.

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

__kan ___ __rvo___ ___pm___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086395
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/03
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/10/08
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 572	144.4900/A49.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.