MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            12 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026036

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was told after a period of time his GD would be upgraded to an HD.  He comments that he does not remember the specifics of the briefing he received in regard to upgrading his discharge and thought that the upgrade would be automatic after a period of time.  

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

On 6 December 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty 72G (Switchboard Operator) and was assigned overseas to Germany for his first permanent duty station.

His record shows that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was 
private/E-2 and there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition on file.  His disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.  

On 25 June 1974, while attached to the processing detachment at Fort Dix, New Jersey, pending movement to Germany, the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL from 13 June 1974 to 20 June 1974 and for missing movement through neglect.  His punishment for these offenses included his reduction in rank to private/E-1.  

On 27 September 1974, the applicant again accepted NJP, this time for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer in the execution of his duties.  His punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $50.00 and 
14 days of restriction and extra duty.  

There is no separation packet containing the facts and circumstances concerning the specific events surrounding the applicant’s discharge in the record.  There is, however, a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) on file, singed by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and the characterization of the applicant’s separation.

The DD Form 214 also shows that the applicant was separated on 23 December 1974, with a GD, under the provisions of Paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 
635-200, by reason of expeditious discharge.  At the time of his separation he had completed 1 year and 10 days of active military service and had accrued 
7 days of time lost due to AWOL.  
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The EDP provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  Separation under these provisions required the voluntary consent of the individual.  In addition, it was required that a soldier, separated under these provisions with a GD, be given the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and be given the option to return the separation action to the initiator.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he believed that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.  However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits and changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Board found no basis for granting relief in this case.  

2.  Although the facts and circumstances concerning the specific events which led to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the record, there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file.  This form was authenticated by the applicant and identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  Therefore, the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, and the Board found the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.

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

____js___  __inw ___  ___ls ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026036	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/12/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expeditious Discharge	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.