MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            3 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999017616

	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	
	Ms.	Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present.

	Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr.	Gary C. Miller		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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:  In effect, that he was informed that his discharge could be upgraded to honorable at any time.  He also states that he is currently enrolled in college and desires to obtain a law degree and become an attorney.  However, his general discharge is preventing him from becoming a
prominent attorney.  He further states that he requested an additional military occupational specialty (MOS) and was refused, so he opted for a discharge.

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

The applicant enlisted on 12 February 1973 for a period of four years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training as a cannoneer and was transferred to Germany.  

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 28 March 1973 for sleeping on guard duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 
14 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant received NJP once again on 7 November 1973 for failure to obey a lawful order and for being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant departed AWOL on 3 January 1974 and remained AWOL until 16 January 1974.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 7 March 1974, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 and Department of the Army Letter DAPE-MPE PS, dated 20 August 1973, for unsuitability.  He was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 1 year, and 12 days of creditable service and 14 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 22 January 1975 for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 23 September 1975. 

The Department of the Army began testing the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) in October 1973.  In a message dated 8 November 1974 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided, for the separation of soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, 

and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the US Army.  Soldiers my be separated under this program when subjective evaluation or their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize  his rights.

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

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

RVO____  EW_____  GCM____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director