MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            11 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018788

	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. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) item 18(a) (net active service this period) be corrected to show
6 months of net active service this period instead of 5 months, and 5 days of net active service this period.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that item 18(a) (net active service this period) 
of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) is incorrect.  In support of his applicant he submits a computer printout from VA.

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

The applicant enlisted on 29 September 1975 as an engineer track vehicle crewman. 

On 26 November 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and for disorderly conduct.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days restriction.

On 27 February 1976, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 2 February 1976 to 24  February 1976 (22 days).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 15 March 1976, the commander initiated action to separate the applicant form the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-39, Evaluation and Discharge of Enlistees Before 180 Active Duty Days.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s poor attitude and lack of motivation and self-discipline.

The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his proposed separation.  He also understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service would be affected.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.   

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 17 March 1976, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings. 

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 17 March 1976 and was found qualified with a 111111 physical profile.

On 22 March 1976, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-39, Evaluation and Discharge of Enlistees Before 180 Active Duty Days.  He was separated from active duty with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 25 March 1976.  He had a total of 5 months, and 5 days of creditable service and had 22 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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 of 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.

Army Regulation 635-5, establishes the policies and procedures for completion of and distribution of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 18(a)
(net active service this period) will list the amount of service for this period, less time lost under Title 10 USC 972.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that 18(a) of his DD Form 214 is incorrect; however, the applicant served only 5 months and 5 days of creditable service and was AWOL for 22 days.  Therefore, item 18(a) of his DD Form 214 is correct and there is no basis to change his net active service this period from
5 months and 5 days to 6 months.

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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

JHK_____  WTM___  JPI______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018788	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990811	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760325	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 100		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.