MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           1 March 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014747

	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.

	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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:  In effect, that he does not dispute the rules or regulations at the time in question and that the Army’s offer of a general discharge to shorten his length of enlistment seemed appropriate at a young age.  However, he contends that he does not feel the same now.   

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

The applicant enlisted on 13 April 1979 for a period of 4 years.  He completed armor training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a cavalry scout on 
10 August 1979.

On 17 December 1979 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standard for retention.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and cited the applicant’s inability to adjust to a military environment and the fact that he had been counseled on numerous occasions.  

The applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation, voluntarily consented to this discharge and elected not to make a statement on his own behalf on 17 December 1979. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 18 January 1980, directed that the applicant be furnished an under honorable conditions (general) discharge and that he be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve for completion of his military service obligation.   

Accordingly, the applicant was separated on 28 January 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standard for retention.  He had served 9 months and 16 days of total active service.  

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of the 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 a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  Individuals discharged under the provisions of this paragraph may be awarded an honorable or general discharge.

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 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years of age at the time he voluntarily consented to his discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standard for retention.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  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.

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

GDP____  MMD____  JS______  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014747	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800128	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 5  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standard for retention.	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.