MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            10 November 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11593

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 was informed at the time of his discharge that it would be automatically upgraded after 6 months had elapsed and to date no action has been taken in that respect.  He goes on to state that he was experiencing medical problems at the time of his separation and he needs his discharge upgraded to pursue matters concerning his medical problems.

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

The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 13 November 1976 and was ordered to active duty for training on 6 February 1977.  Although nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on one occasion, he successfully completed his training as a chemical equipment repairman and was honorably released from active duty on 1 June 1977.  He was transferred back to his Reserve command.

Although not explained in the available records, there are orders present which show that the applicant was reduced to the pay grade of E-2 effective 3 June 1978. 

On 13 August 1979 he was involuntarily ordered to active duty for a period of 20 months and 4 days to satisfy his active duty obligation due to his failure to satisfy his USAR obligations (lack of participation).  He was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The applicant went AWOL from 5 November to 26 November 1979.

On 14 December 1979 the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, due to his failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation one record of NJP and the applicant’s failure to respond favorably to five counseling sessions.
The applicant acknowledged the proposed discharge and indicated that he voluntarily consented to the discharge.

The applicant underwent both a physical examination and a mental status evaluation and was cleared for separation.

Additionally, after consulting with counsel, the applicant indicated that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event that a general discharge was issued and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and he was discharged under honorable conditions on 20 December 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31H(2), for failure to meet acceptable standards for retention.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 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 of that regulation provided authorization for separation for the convenience of the government.  It provided, in pertinent part, for a discharge based on failure to demonstrate promotion potential and meet acceptable standards for retention.  A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally issued.

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 administrative separation on 20 December 1979 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect, with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge issued and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case and the applicant’s otherwise undistinguished record of 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

__cmf___  __inw ___  __mkp __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director