MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           16 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029454

	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.

	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he recently discovered that he could petition for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

On 1 October 1980 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He was granted a waiver for failing the Army physical fitness test in AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (M-48-M60A1 Armor Crewman).  Thereafter he was reassigned to a permanent unit in Germany. 

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private/E-2 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 12 November 1980 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disrespect to a senior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture of $116, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 18 June 1981 the unit commander initiated discharge action on the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-31h(2), AR 635-200, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The unit commander indicated that the reasons for his proposal to administratively separate the applicant were:  missing formations, failing to shave, stealing, lying, failing to comply with orders, failure to maintain his area of responsibility, failing to pass the Army physical fitness test and poor personal hygiene.

On 24 June 1981 the separating authority approved the applicant’s discharge indicating that the applicant displayed no motivation for the Army, that he demonstrated a poor attitude, lack of self-discipline, apathy, and had no potential for promotion.

On 2 July 1981 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of the EDP with a General Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with 9 months and 2 days active military service.

Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 provided, in part, for the discharge of enlisted personnel whose performance of duty and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required in the Army.  Individuals discharged under that regulation could be issued a general or honorable discharge. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The unit commander appropriately determined that the applicant’s quality of service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the applicant’s overall record of service.

2.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

3.  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

___aao__  ___clg__  __mw____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029454	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000105	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810702	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	2400	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9455		
2. 9217		
3.0100		
4.		
5.		
6.