MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000047815

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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:  On two separate applications, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  He also requests that item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the entry “Acceptable standards for retention” instead of the entry “Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention”.  He also requests that his AWOL time be forgiven and that he be cleared of all charges. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he made an error in going AWOL for 
14 days, was engaged with the wrong crowd and has regretted his actions.  He also states that he is apologizing at this time for his actions and would like for the 
Board to forgive him because he was 21 years of age and irresponsible.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 1 August 1979 as a cannon crewman.

The applicant departed AWOL on 17 August 1981 and remained AWOL until 
19 August 1981 (2 days).

The applicant departed AWOL on 3 February 1982 and remained AWOL until 14 February 1982 (12 days).

Between 12 April 1980 and 22 April 1982, the applicant was punished three times under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful general order from a superior noncommissioned officer, for being AWOL from 3 February 1982 to 
14 February 1982 (12 days) and for disobeying a lawful general order from a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, restriction, and extra duty.

On 24 May 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s poor attitude and lack of motivation.  

After consulting with counsel, he consented to the proposed discharge action and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 1 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 11 June 1982.  He had a total of 2 years,
9 months and 27 days of creditable service and 14 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1983.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 17 October 1983.

The Department of the Army began testing the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) in October 1973.  In a message dated 8 November 1974 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided, for the separation of soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, 
and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the US Army.  Soldiers my be separated under this program when subjective evaluation or their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.

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 evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was separated for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  Additionally, the applicant was assigned the proper narrative reason for separation in accordance with regulations then in effect.  Therefore, there is no basis to correct item 28 of his DD Form 214.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

3.  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.

4.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were 
appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

5.  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.

6.  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

_ro___  ___sk__  ___tk_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047815	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820611	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  5-31	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.