MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:          16 March 2000                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999028459

	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 M. 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.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no contentions.

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

That on 26 February 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He served successfully in Korea from 13 June 1979-20 June 1980. 

On 30 July 1980, he was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana.  On 3 October 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against the applicant for leaving his guard post before he was relieved on 28 September 1980.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay and 14 days extra duty.

On 23 November 1980, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order earlier that same day.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and 45 days extra duty.

Between December 1980 and January 1981, he was counseled numerous times about his substandard performance, missing formation on more than one occasion and his lack of motivation.

On 20 January 1981, Leesville, Louisiana civil authorities apprehended the applicant for failure to pay a fine that he received for driving while under the influence (DWI).  The date of the DWI offense is not a matter of record.

On the same date, the commander notified the applicant 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), with a GD.  The commander cited the basis for the separation action was that the applicant “exhibited unsuitability through interest and habits which were detrimental to the maintenance of good order and discipline.”  Additionally, he stated that the applicant had a record of habitual minor misconduct that required corrective disciplinary action.  The applicant was notified of the rights available to him, to include the right to legal counsel.

Also on 20 January 1981, the applicant acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He declined legal counsel and he did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 27 January 1981, the battalion commander who was the separation approval 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 (Expeditious Discharge Program). 

On 5 February 1981, while the applicant was still in civil confinement, he was discharged with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program).  He had completed a total of 1 year, 10 months and 25 days of active military service and he had 16 days lost time.

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

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.

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	AR1999028459	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 5-31  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A24.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.