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.
Mr. Loren G. Harrell Director
Ms. Deyon D. Battle Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. John N. Slone Chairperson
Mr. Ernest M. Willcher Member
Mr. Robert W. Garrett 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
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
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
advisory opinion, if any)
ABCMR Memorandum of
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his narrative reason for separation be
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
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.
ABCMR Memorandum of
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
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
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.
ABCMR Memorandum of
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
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.
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__EW___ __RWG _ __JS____ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell