MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  19 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024318

	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. Theodore G. Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his clinical and medical reports clearly show feet and back problems which interfered with his duty performance; that his unit commander made a completely erroneous untrue statement about him; and that based on his medical condition as documented in his records, he should have been medically discharged.  He submitted a copy of his separation medical examination documents, other medical and clinical reports, and a detailed personal statement in support of his request.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant’s medical records were not available for review, however, partial medical documentation, provided by him, does show multiple entries regarding his complaints of pain in his lower extremities; and that careful and sympathetic consideration should be given in the evidence of record review and in reaching a fair and impartial decision.

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

His complete military medical file was not available to the Board.  Other available records indicated that he initially enlisted and entered active duty for a period of 3 years on 8 November 1974.  

He completed his basic combat and advanced individual training at Fort Ord, California on 12 March 1975.  He was assigned to duties as a tactical wire operations specialist in military occupation specialty 36K at Fort Hood, Texas on 13 March 1975.  He was advanced to private first class (PFC) on 9 May 1975.  He was reassigned to Germany on 19 September 1975.

The medical and clinical reports, submitted by him, covering the period from 5 May to 22 September 1975, indicated that he complained of an upset stomach and pain in both feet.  These documents show that he was successfully treated for his upset stomach.  He was also diagnosed with a mild case of flat feet, evaluated for arch supports, and placed on a 20-day temporary profile with no running.

There was nothing in the evidence of record or in the evidence submitted by him to indicate that his ailments interfered with the performance of his duties.

On 25 September 1975, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Chapter 5, expeditious discharge program (EDP), based on generally substandard performance as evidenced in his reluctance as a soldier to follow orders and only doing so when forced; poor attitude and repetitive counseling for appearance; hostility towards authority and conformity to military 

standards; and close monitoring by his superiors of his whereabouts during duty hours.  His unit commander further stated that the applicant would be subjected to a greater degree of scrutiny due to his hostility towards authority and his unwillingness to conform to standards.  As a result of this, the applicant indicated that he could not tolerate this level of discipline and desired a discharge.  In his acknowledgement of the proposed separation action, the applicant indicated that he voluntarily consented to the discharge; that he was afforded the opportunity to consult with a military lawyer; and that he did not wish to make a statement in his own behalf.  The Board noted that the unit commander’s separation proceeding dated 25 September 1975, is the so-called erroneous untrue letter mentioned by the applicant in his detailed personal statement.

The reports of medical history and medical examination found no change in his general state of health and qualified him for separation.

On 13 October 1975, the separation authority approved the command’s request and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate in accordance with the provisions of the EDP and paragraph 5-37 of AR 635-200.

His DD Form 214, separation document, showed that he was separated in the rank of PFC under honorable conditions on 30 October 1975 in accordance with the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37.  He had completed 11 months and 23 days of creditable service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, that a member whose performance of duty, acceptability for service, and potential for continued effective service, fall below the standards required for enlisted personnel may be discharged. 

In l974, the Department of the Army authorized the Commander in Chief, United States Army Europe to test a new discharge program, entitled the Expeditious Discharge Program.  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated under the EDP.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to be afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 request is not warranted when the evidence of record is considered.  

2.  The Board concludes that his overall poor attitude and substandard performance precipitated his separation, with less than one year of service, under the Expeditious Discharge Program in effect at the time.  

3.  The Board further concludes that if his medical ailments had significantly interfered with his duty performance, he would have been referred by his chain of command for a medical evaluation of his fitness for duty and his ability to continue his military service.  There was nothing contained in his available records or in the evidence presented by him to indicate that such a course of action, a command responsibility not a soldier’s option, was required.  

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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.

6.  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

__RO___  ___CG___  __JI____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024318	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000119	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.