MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  17 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000050792

	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. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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,
that his authority and reason for discharge be changed to “Convenience of the Government” and that his Reentry (RE) code of 3 be changed to a more favorable code. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had no knowledge of the due process to obtain an upgrade of his discharge.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) which included a variety of diplomas reflecting the applicant’s completion of several courses of instruction following his separation.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted 
on 7 August 1972 as a light weapons infantryman.  

Between 5 April 1973 and 18 March 1975, the applicant received eleven counseling statements and was punished twice under Article 15, for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer on four occasions, for being absent from his appointed place of duty on two occasions, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on five occasions, and for altering official documents.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of
E-3, extra training, and extra duty.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 2 April 1975 and was found qualified for separation.

On 15 April 1975, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  He cited, as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s lack of cooperation with peers and superiors, inability to accept instructions or directions, and his failure to demonstrate promotion potential. 

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

On 29 April 1975, the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 21 May 1975.  He had a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 
15 days of creditable service and was issued an RE code of “3”.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade and for a change in his reason and authority for discharge.  However, 
the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations.  The Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 1 December 2000.  

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 fell below the standards required for retention in the US Army.  Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identified 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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government.  Separation under this chapter includes provisions for discharging soldiers for a variety of reasons including those who fail to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of 
Armed Forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial
punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his reason and authority should be changed to “Convenience of the Government”.  However, separation
under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, in effect at the time, was considered a chapter for the convenience of the government, which included paragraph 
5-37, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  Therefore, there is no basis to change the applicant’s authority and reason for discharge.

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

4.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that the RE code issued to him was 
incorrect or unjust.

5.  There is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant's record. The disqualification upon which the code was based, however, can be waived for reenlistment purposes. 

6.  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.

7.  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

___jk___  ___mt___  __mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050792	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010417	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750521	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  5-37	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.