MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043919

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		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 (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

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

On 30 April 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and for the United States Army Special Unit Enlistment Option, 2nd Armored Division.  He was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for basic combat training (BCT).  Upon completion of BCT, he was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland for advanced individual training (AIT).  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupation specialty (MOS) 63H (Track Vehicle Repairer) and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

He served without incident at Fort Hood until he departed his unit on 8 July 1980 in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  He remained absent until 31 July 1980.  He was confined from 10 August 1980 until 21 September 1980.  He was again AWOL from 10 – 11 November 1980.  The applicant was charged with these two periods of AWOL and being disrespectful.  On 17 December 1980, he was convicted by summary court-martial.  He was sentenced to reduction in grade from private/E-2 to private/E-1, forfeiture of $372.00 pay, and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.  On 18 December 1980, the sentence was approved.

On 3 August 1981, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, chapter 5, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 with a GD.  He stated that his specific reason for the separation was the applicant’s lack of motivation and self-discipline.

On 7 August 1981, after consulting with counsel regarding his rights, the applicant acknowledged notification, voluntarily consented to discharge, and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 August 1981, the unit commander recommended the applicant for separation with a GD.  He stated he had counseled the applicant 3 times concerning his deficiencies; that he had no nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice; that he had a summary court-martial conviction; and that he had accepted the discharge.

On 17 August 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a GD.  Accordingly, on 27 August 1981, the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years and 28 days of creditable military service and accruing 91 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 sets forth the conditions under which enlisted 
personnel may be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for 

training, or released from military control, for the convenience of the Government with service characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions, as appropriate.  Paragraph 5-31, the Expeditious Discharge Program, stated that soldiers who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of their first enlistment could be separated for demonstrating that they could not, or would not meet acceptable standards.  The soldier must have voluntarily consented to separation.

There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to have his discharge upgraded within its 15-year statue 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 has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

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

__rvo___  __jpi_____  __ewl ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043919	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200012	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810827	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	“EDP” 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.