MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            30 September 1998                                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09827

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. 		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward 		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 DD Form 214 be changed to show he completed 120 days of active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  His records are very wrong, he served more than        120 days.  The VA does not want to give him compensation.  

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

He enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 19 April 1979 and in the Regular Army on 8 May 1979.  

The applicant received eleven counseling statements for such infractions/problems as being overweight and not trying to lose weight; sleeping during a class and then making an obscene remark to the instructor who told him to pay attention; failing to follow instructions and not able to work with peers; caught outside smoking when he should have been getting his wall locker ready for inspection; not passing the Army Physical Fitness Test; and having personal mail of another platoon member in his possession and passing around the photos that were inside.

On 24 July 1979, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, trainee discharge program.  The commander noted that his lack of motivation and pride in himself his unit or the Army as a whole, his failure to demonstrate positive physical and mental characteristics and immaturity.

On 24 July 1979, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action, made no statement, and checked that he did not desire a separation medical examination.

On 30 July 1979, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he be given an honorable discharge.

On 30 July 1979, he was discharged with an honorable discharge in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5.  He had completed 2 months and 23 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that commanders may expeditiously discharge members who lack the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive soldiers when these individuals were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard or U.S. Army Reserve; are in basic training or in advanced individual training and have completed no more than 179 days active duty or initial active duty for training on current enlistment by the date of discharge; and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention for reasons such as demonstrating character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service 

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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He enlisted on 8 May 1979 and was discharged on 30 July 1979 after completing 83 days of active service.

3.  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

                        	Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director