MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:        
	 

	BOARD DATE:            9 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-09457

	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. 




	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was young and immature but he doesn’t feel that he deserved the type of discharge he received.  He contends that contrary to the Army’s contention that he could not adapt to military life, this was not a good reason to discharge him from the service.  However, he does regret his actions and realizes the mistakes he made.

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

The applicant enlisted on 3 May 1974 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 12 September 1974 for duty as a track vehicle mechanic.

On 10 February 1975 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records show that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 9 August 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37.  He had served 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 20 November 1996.  However, because he failed to file within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations, this Board accepted his application in lieu of a DD Form 149.

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 who 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.
 
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 accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  It must also be presumed that the applicant’s discharge and the reasons therefor were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted and the evidence of record that his discharge is in error or unjust.

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

___jh ___  __fe ____  __tbr____  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director