MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038520

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. 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:  That he was previously unaware that he could apply for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, he has advanced no arguments to support his request.

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

He enlisted on 28 October 1981 for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman, and assignment to Europe.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 24 February 1982 for duty as an indirect fire infantryman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 April 1982. 

On 28 July 1982, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly and for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, extra duty and restriction.

On 12 August 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to recommend that he (the applicant) be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, under the expeditious discharge program (EDP) based on his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant displayed an inability to adapt, lack of self-discipline, and was totally unsuitable for military service because he was 40 pounds overweight, had written $1600 in bad checks, and had received NJP for being drunk and disorderly.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 16 August 1982 and directed that the applicant be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 20 August 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the EDP.  He had served 9 months and 23 days of total active service.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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 Army.  Soldiers may be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of 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 applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  Furthermore, his discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted and the evidence of record that his discharge is in error or unjust.

3.  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

___sac__  __klw ___  __amc___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038520	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/08/20	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH5	
DISCHARGE REASON	516	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  516	144.2900/A29.00/edp	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.