MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:       
	


	BOARD DATE:            14 October 1998  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-07681

	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 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 narrative reason for separation be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his separation should have been a reason other than being separated under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EPD) for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.

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

On 1 May 1979, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a tactical communication system operation mechanic.

On 3 September 1979, the applicant was counseled by his commanding officer (CO) regarding his desire to be discharged from the Army.  He stated that his recruiter knew that he was a conscientious objector and that the military occupational specialty he was applying for would not require him to harm people. His CO informed him of the proper procedures for applying for conscientious objector status.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 15 January 1980, for possession of marijuana and for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

He was counseled on 28 February and 29 February 1980, by his senior NCO,  for missing formation and failure to obey a lawful order.  During the counseling, his senior NCO stated that the applicant had been counseled a number of times in the past for missing formation and for not being at his appointed place of duty.

On 10 March 1980, he was counseled for being absent from his place of duty.  The applicant’s senior NCO told him that he believed it to be a waste of time on everyone’s part to continue counseling and referred him to the CO because of his poor attitude.

In a counseling session with his CO on 20 March 1980, the applicant stated that he did not believe he could continue to meet military standards as he did not agree with the use of force as a means of defense.  He stated that he had become depressed while waiting for conscientious objector status, that he continued to miss formation on occasion, and that he had a bad attitude toward military service.  He further stated that if his request for conscientious status was disapproved, he would continue to try other means of obtaining a discharge.  The CO noted that the applicant had no potential to become a productive soldier and recommended separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) if the request for  conscientious status was disapproved.

On 4 April 1980, the applicant was counseled regarding the withdrawal of his application for conscientious objector.  During counseling, it was noted that the applicant had a bad attitude and no desire to be come a productive soldier.

The applicant was referred to his CO for counseling on 7 April 1980.  He was informed that he was unacceptable for further military service.  The commander stated that the applicant had no respect for authority and continuously created problems.  The applicant stated that he wanted out of the Army no matter what the consequences.

On 4 April 1980, he was notified that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of 635-200, chapter 5-31 under the EDP.  His CO cited his lack of motivation, poor attitude towards military service and inability to meet required standards as the reasons for his recommendation for discharge.

The recommendation for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority.  Accordingly, on 11 April 1980, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-31(2), under the EDP for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had completed 11 months and 11 days of total active service.

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 whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the US 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.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  

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

3.  In his own words, the applicant expressed his desire to be discharged from the Army without regard to the consequences.  

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 the aforementioned 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

__EW___  __RWG _  __JS____  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director