MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060677

	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. P.A. Castle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 he be issued a reentry (RE) code of RE1 and that the narrative reason for his discharge be corrected to Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his general discharge he was told it would be upgraded automatically in 6 months to honorable.  He states he has no evidence to prove this contention.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 30 July 1979 for 3 years.  He successfully completed his initial training and was transferred to Germany on 25 October 1979, for duty as a cannon crewman.  On 22 October 1981, the record shows he was reassigned to Fort Ord, California.

On 29 December 1981, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  The punishment included a reduction in grade to E1, and 14 days of extra duty.

Between 16 March 1982 and 11 May 1982 the applicant was formally counseled       four times for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, once for failure to follow instructions and once for disrespect to his superior non-commissioned officer. 

On 12 May 82, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and being disrespectful in language to his superior noncommissioned officer.  The punishment included forfeiture of $120.00 for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty.

On 13 May 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, as a substandard soldier with an extremely poor attitude and the failure to respond favorably to six counseling sessions.  The applicant acknowledged the proposed discharge and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 May 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation    635-200, paragraph 5-31, and the EDP.  This program provided for the separation of soldiers when subjective evaluation by 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.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in conformance with applicable regulations with no violations of any of his rights.

2.  Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge, the narrative reason for discharge, and the RE code directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

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.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and are not supported either by evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

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

___ao___  __mm___  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060677	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  7	100.0600	
3.  191	110.0200	
4.		
5.		
6.