RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 January 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011655


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, a change to his Separation Program
Designator (SPD) code and/or reason and authority for his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was separated for not obtaining a
security clearance and not for his performance.  He states that he never
received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and was only counseled for
asking for a paycheck advance.  He further states he was counseled one time
for being late to formation and one time for his Army Physical Fitness Test
(APFT) score.  He claims there was no pattern of disobedience or bad
performance.  He further states that he was informed it would take a month
before he could get legal counsel and with the situation, he did not want
to wait and allow things to get twisted.  He claims he has now completed
research and learned more about what was right and wrong and he is trying
to correct it.

3.  The applicant provides two third-party letters in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 20 March 2001.  His record shows he was trained in
and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Military Police),
and that specialist (SPC) is the highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned
the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas
Service Ribbon.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

2.  On 5 December 2003, the applicant's platoon sergeant prepared a
Memorandum for Record (MFR) informing the chain of command of serious acts
of misconduct committed by the applicant.  It indicated that in June 2002,
the applicant was denied a security clearance based on unpaid debts.  It
also indicated that the applicant had numerous traffic violations and had
been charged for possession of a deadly weapon.

3.  On 12 December 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant that
separation action was being initiated on him under the provisions of
Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory
performance based on his failure to retrain a security clearance, inability
to manage his finances, and various minor misconduct that included
possession of a deadly weapon, absence from formation, and traffic
violations.
4.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of
the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the
rights available to him, and the effect of his waiver of any of those
rights, he elected to waive his right to consulting counsel and not to
submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 30 December 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant's
separation and directed that he receive an honorable discharge.  On 21
January 2004, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  Item 25
(Separation Authority) of the separation document (DD Form 214) issued to
the applicant at the time confirms he was separated under the provisions of
Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.  Item 26 (Separation Code) shows he
was assigned the SPD code of
JHJ and Item 27 (Reentry Code) confirms he was assigned the reentry (RE)
code of RE-3.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) confirms the
reason for his discharge was unsatisfactory performance.

6.  On 7 February 2007, after a thorough review of the applicant military
records and other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board
(ADRB) determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable,
and it voted not to change the narrative reason for his separation.

7.  The applicant provides two third-party statements in support of his
application. The first from a former platoon sergeant, dated 11 January
2004, which attests to the applicant's exceptional performance of duty.
The second statement, dated
2 July 2007, is from the applicant's former squad leader and also attests
to the applicant's performance of duty and alleges the applicant's first
sergeant took a personal dislike of the applicant.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities
(regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active
duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of JHJ is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation
635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

9.  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.  The service of Soldiers
separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military
records.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his SPD code (reason for discharge) was
unjust based on the fact he had never received NJP and he was only
counseled on a few occasions for minor matters was carefully considered,
and the third-party supporting statements he provided were carefully
considered.  However, the evidence of record is void of any indication that
the applicant was unfairly treated and it confirms his separation
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully
protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The evidence of record also confirms that he was properly assigned the
SPD code of JHJ based on the authority and reason for his separation in
accordance with the governing regulation.  The applicant's loss of
eligibility for a security clearance based on indebtedness and his
disciplinary history, which included possession of a deadly weapon and
numerous traffic violations more than support his separation processing for
unsatisfactory performance.  Absent any evidence to the contrary, it is
concluded that his discharge was proper and equitable.  As a result, there
is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a change to his SPD code,
which is based on the authority and reason for his separation.

3.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___DKH _  __JRH __  __EEM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____David K. Hassenritter___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070011655                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/01/25                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/01/21                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C13                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat Perf                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]