MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           16 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028454

	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. Rosa Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no contentions.

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

That on 5 September 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19D (Cavalry Scout).  On 
13 December 1979, he was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas and remained at that installation throughout his career as a Cavalry Scout.

Between April and August 1980, the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, (failure to repair), for lack of self discipline, for lack of motivation, and for leaving his appointed place of duty without receiving permission from the proper authority.

On 11 April 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant for willfully disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 29 May 1980, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his appointed place of duty on 21 May 1980.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 1 December 1980, he was advanced to pay grade E-2 and on 1 April 1981 to pay grade E-3.  

On 24 June 1981, NJP was imposed against him for wrongfully having in his possession some amount of marihuana on 8 June 1981.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay and extra duty.  

He was again advanced to pay grade E-3 on 24 October 1981.

On 8 June 1982, his commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program) (EDP), with a GD.  The commander cited the applicant’s inability to adjust to military standards, his lack of military bearing, his total disregard for authority and his demonstrated inability to perform at the marginal standards required for consideration for retention on active duty as the basis for the separation action.  He was also notified of the rights available to him, to include the right to legal counsel.

On 10 June 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. There is no evidence that he sought legal counsel.

On 29 June 1982, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 1 July 1982, the appropriated authority approved the recommendation
and directed the issuance of a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP). 

On 7 July 1982, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 10 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to clearly be substandard performers.  This paragraph also provided for the separation of those individuals who obviously could not adjust to the Army environment, and or those who responded initially but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment.  Under this regulation a GD or an HD was considered appropriate.  Further, the regulation then in effect stated that no individual would be given a GD by the separation authority unless the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.

The applicant made application to the Army Discharge Review Board regarding the period of enlistment under review in April 1999, well past that Board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

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.  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.
2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  Both the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The Board concluded that the quality of the applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge he is requesting.

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

__jlp____  ___owt___  ___cjp__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028454	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820707	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	For failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, EDP	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A24.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.