MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           27 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999029805

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 a fully honorable discharge (HD) and that the narrative reason be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the GD that he received and the narrative reason for discharge (failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention) has become a thorn in his side.  The type of discharge and the narrative reason for discharge that he received has caused him a great hardship.  Further, he believes that he should not have received this narrative reason.  It is hard for him to obtain and maintain employment.  He is a single parent raising three daughters.  

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

That on 4 September 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist).  On 4 February 1980, he was assigned to Korea.

On 2 October 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (7 August 1981), for disobeying a lawful order on two separate occasions (8 and 9 August 1981) and for being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer (9 August 81).  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 27 January 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for violating a general lawful regulation by having an open container of beer in a moving privately owned vehicle.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade 
E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended) forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 7 May 1982, NJP was imposed against him for willfully disobeying an order to get a hair cut (1 May 1982) and for behaving in a disrespectful manner towards a commissioned officer (3 May 1982).  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, and to be confined at the Correctional Confinement Facility for 30 days.

On 20 May 1982, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program), with a GD.  He was also notified of the rights available to him.

On 25 May 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 27 May 1982, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD.

On 9 June 1982, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program).  He had completed a total of 2 years, 9 months and 6 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.

Evidence of record indicates that on 21 January 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to clearly be substandard performers.  This paragraph also provided for the separation of those individuals who obviously could not adjust to the Army environment, and or those who responded initially but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment.  Under this regulation a GD or an HD was considered appropriate.  Further, the regulation then in effect stated that no individual would be given a GD by the separation authority unless the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.

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 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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  Both the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The Board concluded that the quality of the applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge he is requesting.

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

__eb____  __tap___  __klw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029805	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000427	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820609	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A40.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.