MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045079

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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:  In effect, that his ability to serve in the Army was impaired by his youth and immaturity as well as the drugs and alcohol abuse.
He further states in effect, that he did not have the proper guidance in making the military a part of his life.

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

On 1 July 1974, at 18 years of age the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army with parental consent for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty
64C (Motor Transport Operator).

The DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows that the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 to 25 November 1974. 

In December 1974, the applicant was counseled on three different occasions for failure to repair and for trying to cover up the incidents.  He was also warned that continued behavior of this nature could result in administrative action being taken against him.

On 4 February 1975, The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from
23 to 28 January 1975.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of 
$60.00 pay, a reduction to pay grade E-2, 10 days restriction and 10 days extra duty.

On 5 February 1975, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action for separating him under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 5, Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The commander cited the applicant’s inability to adapt to military life and his blatant disregard for orders and regulations, which had resulted in him receiving an Article 15, and numerous counselings.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation actions and the rights available to him.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.

The applicant’s medical file is missing from his record.  However, the applicant
signed a statement that he had undergone a separation physical and that there had not been a change in his medical condition.  He did not make a statement concerning drugs or alcohol abuse.

On 10 February 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service and be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 12 February 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, EDP under honorable conditions.  He completed 6 months and 27 days of creditable active service and 15 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provided that members who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged.  It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.  No member will be discharge under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable
conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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.  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’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s allegations however, the evidence of record does not support his contentions.

4.  The Board is cognizant of the fact that the applicant was 18 years old when he enlisted but that factor does not warrant upgrading his discharge.

5.   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

__jhl___  __clg___  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045079	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750212	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635 200, chapter 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A24.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.