MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            17 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12415

	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:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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:  The deletion of all items that were added to his report of separation (DD Form 214) after his discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he requested a copy of his DD Form 214 and when he received it he discovered that the authority and reason for separation, the reenlistment code, and the narrative reason for separation had been added to his DD Form 214.  He goes on to state that these items were not present on the copy he received at separation and believes that they not only is the information in error, they should not be present and will hinder him should he be required to present the DD Form 214 to prospective employers.  He further states that he was not discharged for unsuitability but in fact was the result of a confidential between himself. his company commander, and criminal investigation division (CID) officials. 

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

The applicant enlisted with parental consent on 5 February 1975 for a period of 3 years, training as a ground surveillance radar crewman, and assignment to Fort Lewis, Washington.  

He successfully completed his training on 19 June 1975 and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis with a report date of 21 July 1975.  However, the applicant failed to report until 3 August 1975.

On 4 August 1975 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 July to 3 August 1975.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1.

On 8 January 1976, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions regarding his failure to come to work, needing a haircut, and repeated sick call visits that tended to occur on days that physical training was conducted.  He also informed the applicant that he had a right to decline discharge under the EDP.  The applicant voluntarily consented to be discharged and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The commander initiated the separation action and included a statement to the effect that since his arrival in the unit, the applicant made it known to the chain of command that he desired to be discharged from the Army.  He also indicated that he had family problems and that he was not suited for Army life.  The commander further explained that the chain of command attempted through counseling to forestall a discharge action to no avail.  The applicant repeatedly demonstrated that he would not unable to adapt to military life and his attitude deteriorated to the point that he declared that he wanted to get out of the Army any way he could.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 22 January 1976 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 27 January 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, due to his failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.  He had served 11 months and 10 days of total active service.

At the time of the applicant’s separation he elected in writing to receive a copies 1 and 8 of his DD Form 214 without a narrative reason for separation, the authority for his separation, and the reenlistment code.  Accordingly, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was prepared without the aforementioned information until such time as he was provided his copies.  After the applicant signed for his copies, the aforementioned information was entered in the appropriate blocks on all remaining official copies.

Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  The regulation in effect at the time, provides in pertinent part, that prior to preparation of the DD Form 214, the individual being separated will be afforded the opportunity to receive his copies of the DD Form 214 prior to entering information relating to the authority for separation, the narrative reason for separation, and the reenlistment code.  It further states that the individual must make the election in writing and once provided his/her personal copies, all remaining copies will be completed with the missing aforementioned information prior to distribution.

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 if the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of soldiers who acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers may be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of 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.  The applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  His discharge and the reasons therefor were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  Likewise, his DD Form 214 was properly completed by inserting the appropriate information after he obtained the copies he requested in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.   

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.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by the submitted with his applicant or the evidence of record.

5.  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

__kw ___  __mm___  ___klw __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.