MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:          10 August 2000     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041089

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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:  In effect, that his records of punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be expunged from his records and that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That following a parachuting accident he was unable to perform his duties because of constant pain which made him irritable and aggressive.  He notes that he tried to explain this to his superiors but they just told him that "all paratroopers have pain, [and] just to live with it."  In support of his request he submits numerous letters of commendation he received while working as a cook with the Arkansas Department of Correction in Calico Rock, Arkansas and letters of recommendation from individuals who state he is an outstanding member of local fire and rescue units.  He also submits copies of his September 1999 VA rating decision which granted him a 30 percent disability rating for "cervical spondylitis" and a 10 percent rating for "post traumatic headaches."

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

He entered active duty on 27 December 1979 and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training prior to being assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for airborne training.  Upon completion of airborne training, in May 1980, the applicant was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina as a cook.

A medical statement provided by the applicant indicates he was seen by medical personnel on 6 June 1980 with complaints of pain and tenderness in his shoulders which he reported occurred when he jumped from an airplane "resulting in considerable twisting…."  Subsequent x-rays of his shoulders were normal and revealed no fractures.

Between 8 August 1980 and 20 November 1980 the applicant was punished three times under Article 15 of the UCMJ for offenses which included several counts of failure to repair, disobeying a lawful order, use of disrespectful language and three days of AWOL.  In each case the applicant elected not to appeal the action.

On 17 December 1980 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  The commander cited the applicant's "substandard performance, the inability to accept instructions or directions, and a lack of cooperation with peers and superiors" as the basis for the recommendation.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his attendant rights, including his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

The recommendation was approved and on 21 January 1981 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

There is no indication the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board to upgrade his 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.  While the applicant maintains that his medical condition was the basis for his misconduct, and that he made his superiors aware of that, he has provided no evidence which confirms that allegation.  Rather, the evidence of record indicates that he never appealed any of the UCMJ actions and when given the opportunity to submit a statement on his own behalf during his separation processing he elected not to do so.

3.  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.

4.  While the applicant’s post-service character is noted it does not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief. 

5.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

6.  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

___mdm__  ___js___  ___kah__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041089	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000810	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.