MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           29 July 1999                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998013194

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Charles H. Loundermon		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he realizes a lot of time has past since his discharge, however, an upgrade of his discharge would be very meaningful to him and his family.

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

That the applicant had completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina; had been awarded MOS 36K (Tactical Wire Operator Specialist); and had attained the rank of private/E-2.  The record further shows that upon completion of basic and AIT the applicant was returned to his reserve unit and was awarded the MOS 12B (Combat Engineer).

On 26 October 1978 the applicant was discharged from his USAR assignment, and ordered to active duty in the rank of private/E-2 for 18 months and 16 days, due to his nonparticipation in unit assemblies.  At the time he was ordered to active duty the applicant had completed 5 years and 23 days of military service.  On 12 December 1978 he reported to the Reception Station at Fort Jackson.  He was assigned to Germany as a Combat Engineer (MOS 12B) for his permanent assignment.

The record indicates the applicant was counseled on three occasions.

On 6 July 1979 the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to eliminate him from the United States Army under the provisions of chapter 5-31, AR 635-200 (Expeditious Discharge Program).  The unit commander’s reasons for separation were the applicant’s lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, his inability to adapt socially and emotionally, and his failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  The applicant was advised of his rights.  The separation authority concurred with the unit commander and approved the discharge with a GD.  Accordingly, on 19 September 1979 the applicant was discharged after completing 9 months and 9 days of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5-31 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions (poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential) may be separated under the Army expeditious discharge program when they have failed to respond to counseling.

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 discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

2.  The applicant was discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  In order to be separated under this program, the applicant had to voluntarily consent to the proposed 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 the aforementioned requirement.

4.  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

___chl___  ___slp__  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998013194	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990729	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790919	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.9500		
2.0100		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.