MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           20 March 2001         
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046458

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the GD that he received is unjust because he had mental problems at the time.  He was disabled then and he is still disabled.

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

That on 17 July 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31J (Teletypewriter Repair).  He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and on 18 September 1979, he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for advanced individual training.

Between 24 September 1979 and 1 April 1980, the applicant was counseled on 24 different occasions for various reasons to include failure to follow instructions; for failure to repair on numerous occasions; for failure to sign out of the unit on several occasions; for failure to get a haircut; for refusing to perform police call on more than one occasion; for being absent from his place of duty on more than one occasion; for failure to adjust to the military environment; for a lack of motivation; for having a negative attitude; for lack of self-discipline; for arguing with his superiors; for malingering; for deliberately trying to avoid going on detail; and for receiving a "no go" on at least four blocks of instructions.  He was also counseled on being discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service.

On 24 January 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against the applicant for failure to obey a lawful order to sign out when departing the company area and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 
21 January 1980.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 15 February 1980, NJP was imposed against him for failing to sign out of the unit when departing during duty hours and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 5 February 1980.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 20 February 1980, NJP was imposed against him for leaving his place of duty without being properly relieved and for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer on 7 February 1980.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 7 March 1980, the applicant was referred to the faculty board at the US Army Signal School, Fort Gordon, as a result of his poor attitude; lack of motivation; and academic standing.  The faculty board recommended that he be relieved from the MOS 31J course.  The faculty board considered his lack of interest in learning; the fact that he was not always at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; he had received three NJP's; and that he had academically failed four blocks of instruction.  On 7 March 1980, the recommendation was approved.

On 19 March 1980, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), with a GD.  His commander stated that the applicant had demonstrated an inability to adapt socially and emotionally to military life.  His substandard performance and lack of cooperation with peers and superiors evidenced his social and emotional maladjustment and demonstrated that he could not adjust to military life.  He was also informed of the rights available to him and that he had the right to legal counsel. 

On 20 March 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel; he acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a GD.  The available records do not contain a statement that the applicant submitted in his own behalf. 

On 4 April 1980, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD.

On 11 April 1980, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, EDP.  He had completed a total of 8 months and 25 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.

Evidence of record indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge 
Review Board in August 2000, which was well past that board's 15-year statute of limitation.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to clearly be substandard performers under the EDP.  This paragraph provided for the separation of those individuals who obviously could not adjust to the Army environment, and/or those who responded initially, but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment.  Under this regulation, a GD, or an HD was considered appropriate.  Further, the regulation stated that no individual would be given a GD by the separation authority unless the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  Both the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The Board concluded that the quality of the applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge he is requesting.

4.  While the applicant claims that he had a medically unfitting disability which mitigated his behavior and conduct, he has provided no probative medical evidence of any such mental/medical condition.  Therefore, he has established no basis for the upgrade of his discharge for possible medical reasons.

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

__fne____  __rjw ___  __wdp __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046458	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010320	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.