MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041706

	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. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident of self-defense; that after this incident he was verbally disciplined and thereafter eliminated from the service without notification; that his overall performance of service was acceptable; that when he left the Army he had a drinking and drug problem; that he had run-ins with the law after service; and, that he is now sober, married, and a father. 

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

On 11 November 1979 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Eustis, Virginia.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 68G (Aircraft Structural Repairman). 

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 8 October 1980 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order on two occasions.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $129 and 14 days extra duty.

On 27 November 1980, while at Fort Eustis, the applicant was promoted to private first class/E-3.

On 17 February 1981 he accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $135, and restriction and extra duty for 14 days.

On 5 March 1981 the applicant departed Fort Eustis in casual status en route to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 28 August 1981 he accepted NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty and for dereliction of duty.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of $100, and 14 days extra duty.

On 11 February 1982 the applicant accepted NJP for willfully damaging government property by kicking a hole in a door and splintering a doorframe.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-1, a forfeiture of $200, and 45 days restriction and extra duty.
On 25 February 1982 the applicant accepted NJP for breach of peace and wrongfully engaging in a fistfight with another soldier.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $128 (suspended) and 14 days extra duty.

The applicant’s record of counseling from June 1981 – February 1982 shows that he was counseled on numerous occasions by his chain of command for failing to repair; sleeping on guard duty; indecent exposure; and, disobeying lawful orders.

On 25 February 1982 the unit commander initiated discharge action on the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-31h(2), AR 635-200, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The unit commander indicated that the reasons for his proposal to administratively separate the applicant were:  an inability to adjust to military life; lack of self-discipline; lack of motivation; and, poor promotion potential. 

On 1 March 1982 the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed separation and voluntarily consented to the separation.  He was advised of his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 10 March 1982 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of the EDP with a General Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with 2 years, 3 months and 4 days active military service.

Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 provided, in part, for the discharge of enlisted personnel whose performance of duty and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required in the Army.  Individuals discharged under that regulation could be issued a general or honorable discharge. 

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

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 that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The unit commander appropriately determined that the applicant’s quality of service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the applicant’s overall record of service.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions, however, the evidence of record does not support that the applicant was separated as a result of an isolated event or that the applicant was not notified as to the nature or reasons for his separation.

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 this requirement.

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

__gdp___  ___eb___  ___mvt__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041706	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000718	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820310	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.2400.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9235.0000	
2. 	144.9319.0000	
3.	144.0100.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.