MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999023346

	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. Samuel Calderon		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth 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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his chain of command did not provide him the opportunity to seek any type of counseling.  He also states that he made an effort to go to legal counseling, however, his chain of command frightened the legal advisor.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 2 February 1979 as a cavalry scout.

Beginning in March 1979, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements and nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of being absent from his appointed place of duty, breaking restriction, possession of marijuana and for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer.

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 8 June 1981, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  He was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 
2 years, 4 months and 7 days of creditable service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his command did not provide him the opportunity to seek any type of counseling; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

2.  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.

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

RVO____  SC_____  KW______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023346	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990513	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810608	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.