MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           14 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066186

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  When he was discharged from the Army, he was told that his characterization of service could be changed to honorable.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 23 April 1979 for a period of 3 years and the United States Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option, military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B, (Military Police).  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 95B and was assigned to the Republic of Korea as his first permanent duty station. 

On 15 May 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2, forfeiture of $75.00 pay for one month and 14 days' restriction and extra duty.

On 20 May 1980, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go, at the time prescribed, to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 pay for one month and 14 days' restriction and extra duty.

The record indicates the applicant's first sergeant counseled him on two occasions regarding his punishment of extra duty and restriction. 

On 23 May 1980, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to eliminate him from the United States Army under the provisions of paragraph
5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), for failing to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  The unit commander's reasons for separation were the applicant's inability to adjust to military life and discipline, his substandard behavior both on and off duty, and his failure to respond appropriately to disciplinary actions.  The applicant was advised of his rights, chose not to make a statement in his own behalf, and agreed to separation under the EDP.  The applicant acknowledged with his signature that he understood that there was neither automatic upgrading nor review by any government agency of a characterization of service that was under honorable conditions, and that he had to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if he wished a review of characterization of service.  He further acknowledged that the act of consideration by either Board did not imply that his characterization would be upgraded.

The separation authority concurred with the unit commander and approved the discharge with a GD.  Accordingly, on 2 July 1980, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions (poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential) may be separated under the Army expeditious discharge program when they have failed to respond to counseling.

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 discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

2.  The applicant was discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  In order to be separated under this program, the applicant had to voluntarily consent to the proposed separation.

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

__dhp ___  ___kan __  ____mhm DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066186	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020514	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800702	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 5-31	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.0135	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.