MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            3 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11406

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 her honorable discharge be changed 
to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was told that she had to leave the
service and had a choice of a medical or honorable discharge; that it would
be in her record that she was crazy if she did not accept an honorable discharge; and that she would not be able to get a job.  She also states that she has always been fearful of being labeled as mentally ill, therefore, she denied it.  She further states that it was not until after she tried to fix herself and seek help that she has come to terms with her illness.  She goes on to state that the Army considered her lazy and a malingerer, and she preferred to believe them and live with the shame rather than face her illness.   She continues by stating that what was described as malingering and other complaints by her commanding officer were symptoms of depression.  She concludes by stating that rather than face her illness, the Army discharged her, which was a great injustice.

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

She enlisted in the USAR under the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 
9 December 1975 for a period of 4 years as a finance specialist.  She enlisted
in the Regular Army on 4 May 1976 for a period of 4 years.

On 8 July 1977, the commander initiated action to separate the applicant
from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 
5-37.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of motivation and lack of self discipline.

On 25 July 1977, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which diagnosed the applicant as having a hysterical personality, immature, manipulative traits, accompanied by psychosomatic complaints.  The psychiatrist also indicated that the applicant had long standing personality problems, no real motivation for further service at the present time, and that she was unable to respond to authority, responsibilities, and assistance was offered except in a negative and manipulative manner.  Consequently, the applicant was cleared for action deemed appropriate by her commander.

After consulting with counsel, she consented to the proposed discharge action
and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that she be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 29 July 1977, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, for failure to maintain acceptable standard for retention.  She had served 1 year, 2 months, and
26 days of total active service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change in the narrative reason for her discharge within its
15-year statute of limitations.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

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

3.	Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.
However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record.  The applicant was cleared for separation at the time
and has provided no evidence to show that she was not otherwise ineligible
for separation.

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

__rwa___  ___elw __  __js ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director