MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042838

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Martha E. Schuler		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 an Honorable Discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he would like to reenter the service.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 4 September 1979.  Trained as a wheeled vehicle and power generator mechanic, he was assigned to Korea from 13 January 1980 to 8 January 1981 and then to Fort Bliss, Texas.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on two occasions:  on 25 October 1979 for failing to secure his wall locker; and on 13 October 1980 for willfully disobeying the order of a superior noncommissioned officer.  Additionally, he received numerous negative counseling statements for:  unserviceable, unkempt uniforms; poor personal appearance; and not following orders.

On an unknown date, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 (expeditious discharge program) with a GD.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended approval of the discharge action and forwarded it through command channels to the separation authority.  On 30 July 1981, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a GD.

On 6 August 1981, the applicant was discharged with a GD, under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of the expeditious discharge program.  He was credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 3 days active service on the enlistment under review.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of the regulation then in effect covered discharges under the expeditious discharge program wherein a commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel or above could separate a soldier who demonstrated that he could not, or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  Personnel discharged under this provision were given an HD or GD dependent on overall quality of service.

There is no record that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations for that board.

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant was a substandard soldier with two NJPs and numerous negative counseling statements in his records.  His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  A GD does not preclude the applicant from reenlisting; he may consult with a recruiter to seek a waiver for any disqualifying condition, such as his reentry eligibility (RE) code of RE-3 which is based upon the narrative reason for his separation.

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

__wtm___  __jea___  __mes___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042838	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001116	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810806	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A24.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.