PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           1 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028196

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that her general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

3.  The applicant states that there was no counseling or support available to assist her in overcoming the changes her command put them all through.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 February 1974.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman).

5.  On 19 February 1975, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, Expeditious Discharge Program.  He recommended she receive an honorable discharge certificate.  His reasons for the proposed action were that he believed she lacked the motivation to be a good soldier.  At her request she was removed from military police line duty to several other jobs but her job performance was substandard.  It was never necessary to impose non-judicial punishment but she did require frequent and repetitive counseling.

6.  On 19 February 1975, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.

7.  On 20 February 1975, the battalion commander approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

8.  On 12 March 1975, the applicant was discharged with a character of service of “under honorable conditions” (a general discharge), in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37.  She had completed 1 year, 1 month and 2 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that members who have completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged.  It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.  No member will be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge.  Normally, an honorable discharge will be awarded unless the soldier’s conduct clearly substantiates a general discharge.  

10.  Under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, commanders exercising special court-martial jurisdiction are authorized to take final action in all cases involving separation with an honorable discharge.  Cases in which a general discharge is recommended will be forwarded to commanders exercising general court-martial jurisdiction for final action.  Approval authorities may issue honorable discharge certificates to individuals receiving unsatisfactory efficiency ratings as their final ratings when other circumstances clearly warrant an honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that a Government error and injustice occurred in this case.

2.  The applicant’s immediate commander recommended she receive an honorable discharge certificate.  He noted that she was being recommended for separation for unsatisfactory performance (efficiency), not for any misconduct.  

3.  The applicant’s battalion commander did not have the authority to approve her separation with a general discharge. If he believed she deserved only a general discharge, his only authority was to recommend such a discharge and forward the action to the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction for final approval action.

4.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s conduct did not clearly substantiate a general discharge and so an honorable discharge would have been appropriate.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 12 March 1975.

2.  That the Department issue to her an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 12 March 1975, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by her.

3.  That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

BOARD VOTE:  

__mkp___  __aao___  __eja___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Margaret K. Patterson
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028196	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750312	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 5-37 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A.04	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.