MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:            25 March 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022611

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 President Reagan downsized the military and he was one of the individuals discharged.

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

He enlisted on 31 March 1981 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty as a cannoneer. 

While in training, on 5 May 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully withholding 10 money orders (value of $997.00) with the intent to steal and making a false statement.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 7 days.

Between 4 November 1981 and 28 April 1982, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for failures to repair (FTR), missing formations and indebtedness.   
On 4 May 1982 NJP was imposed against the applicant for operating a vehicle while drunk.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (partially suspended) and 30 days of correctional custody.

NJP was imposed against the applicant on 5 September 1982 for FTR.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-2 and 14 days of extra duty. 

On 6 October 1982 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  The commander based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s poor attitude, recalcitrant actions and indebtedness.

The applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf on 7 October 1982.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 21 October 1982 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program on 26 October 1982.  He had served 1 year, 6 months, and 26 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 was noted by the Board.  However, the applicant failed to convince the board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

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

__mkp __  __eja____  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022611	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19821026	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200  	
DISCHARGE REASON	EXPEDITIOUS DISCHARGE PROGRAM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.  813	A92.23	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.