MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063803

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a good soldier; however, he suffered from depression and could not cope with any profession.

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

On 17 February 1982, he enlisted in the Army for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a MANPADS crewmember.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 27 July 1982, for being absent without leave from 17 July until 18 July 1982.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 20 August 1982, NJP was imposed against him for breaking restriction and for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

Although the counseling statements are unavailable for review by the Board, a review of the available records show that the applicant had also been counseled six times.

On 24 August 1982, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), had been initiated.  His commander informed him that the elimination action was based on his poor attitude, lack of self-discipline and lack of motivation.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 30 August 1982 and he opted to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement he requested that he be furnished an honorable discharge rather than a general discharge.  He stated that he had the highest respect for any person who was willing to lay his life on the line to defend our country.  He further stated that he had met a young lady and that he and his fellow soldiers had physical disagreements about his choice in ladies.  He went on to state that the physical disagreements along with his being late for formation on three different occasions were the reasons for elimination action being initiated against him.  The applicant concluded his statement by saying that he had never disobeyed any order that he was given and that he apologized for not being fit to serve in the United States Army.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 15 September 1982.  Accordingly, on 20 September 1982, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-31, under the EDP, based on his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had completed 7 months and 4 days of total active service.

On 14 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

The Department of the Army began testing the 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 whose acceptability, performance of duty and/or potential for continued effective service falls 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.  Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the provision of the EDP.  Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under other provisions of the regulation, which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.

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, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record.  The record shows that he was counseled six times and he had NJP imposed against him twice as a result of his acts of misconduct.  There is no evidence of record to support his contention that he suffered from depression and was unable to cope with his profession.  He was furnished a general discharge and considering his numerous acts of misconduct, it does not appear that the type of discharge he received was too severe.

4.  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.

5.  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

__jhl ____  ___rtd  __  ___rjw __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063803	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/09/20	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	488	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  488	144.2400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.