MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030782

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

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

On 30 September 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31M (Multi-Channel Communications Equipment Operator) and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for his first permanent duty station.

The highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3.  His record contains no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  There is a recorded disciplinary history, which includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.

On 7 March 1979, he accepted NJP for being AWOL for 4 days from 24 to 
27 February 1979.  The resultant punishment included a reduction in grade to private/E-2, forfeiture of $109.00, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty. 

On 27 March 1979, he accepted NJP for four specifications of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.  His punishment for these offenses included a reduction in grade to private/E-1, a forfeiture of $97.00, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 6 April 1979, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that separation proceedings were being initiated, under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) contained in Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200, that a GD was being recommended.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of self-discipline, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential as the reasons for taking the separation action.  

On 12 April 1979, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, and of the rights available to him.  He completed his election of rights by consenting to the proposed discharge action and electing not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.  

On 19 April 1979, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD.  Accordingly, on 25 April 1979, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 6 months, and 22 days of active military service and having had accrued 4 days of time lost due to AWOL.

On 9 November 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found the discharge was proper and equitable in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedure for separating members under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The EDP provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.

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 evidence of record shows that the applicant voluntarily consented to his administrative separation under the EDP.  In addition, the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time and the reason and character of the applicant’s discharge are commensurate with his overall record of military service.  Therefore, the Board finds no basis for relief.

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

___rvo __  __mkp___  ___vbc__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030782	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1979/04/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expeditious Discharge Program	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.