MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000051106

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  That he filed for a hardship discharge because his mother was ill and it was not granted.  He further states that he got a general discharge and was told at the time that it would be automatically upgraded in 3 years; however, it never has been.

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

He enlisted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 22 July 1980 for a period of 3 years, training as an administrative specialist and assignment to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg on 12 January 1981.

On 24 November 1981 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for the wrongful possession of marijuana and failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

On 10 December 1981 NJP was again imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 1 March 1982 NJP was imposed against him for two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement for 7 days (suspended for 90 days).

The applicant’s commander notified him on 4 March 1982 that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s substandard performance, inability to accept instructions, lack of cooperation with superiors, his disciplinary record, and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions.  He recommended that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant’s battalion commander interviewed the applicant on 9 March 1982 and indicated in his endorsement that the applicant freely acknowledged that most of the misconduct and substandard performance was his own fault.  The applicant offered only that he had family problems and the battalion commander discussed in detail what his rights in the matters were at the time.  The applicant indicated that he had no interest in availing himself of his rights or of contesting the discharge.  The battalion commander recommended that he be discharged as expeditiously as possible.

The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 11 March 1982 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 19 March 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h (2) and the EDP for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had served 1 year, 7 months and 28 days of total active service.

On 22 March 1984, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, determined that he had been properly discharged and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 4 February 1985.

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 Army.  Soldiers may be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of 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.  Under today’s standards soldiers are separated for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  There are not now nor have there ever been any automatic provisions for an upgrade of a duly constituted 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.  The applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  His discharge and the reasons therefor were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The Board noted and considered the applicant’s contentions.  However, after carefully evaluating his overall record of service, the Board finds these issues are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief given the short duration and undistinguished nature of his military service. 

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

___js ___  ____cjp__  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000051106	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/03/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch5	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  547	144.4000/unsuitability	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.