MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            20 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028664

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have been discharged from the Army with an Honorable Discharge Certificate because his father had heart problems and he needed to be at home.  He further states that he was told at the time of his discharge that after 10 years his discharge would automatically be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

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

On 28 February 1973, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of 
E-1.  His Enlisted Qualification Record shows that on 12 March 1973 he completed basic combat training and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 28 June 1973.

The records show that the applicant was counseled by his platoon sergeant and his first sergeant on numerous occasion between 12 June and 9 August 1973 for lack of personal pride, responsibility, attitude and military courtesy.  During his counseling he was asked to explain his problems and his reply was that he could not adjust to the ways of military life.  He was instructed to apply himself, to try very hard and to feel free to discuss any problems with his chain of command.  He was also counseled by the post chaplain on numerous occasions.

On 9 September 1973, the applicant was counseled by the company commander and he was again informed of the proper procedures to apply for a hardship discharge.

On 10 September 1973, he was counseled by the battalion commander.  It was determined that no emergency existed and he was referred to the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service for a psychiatric evaluation.

On 11 September 1973, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army had been initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  At the time of notification, he was advised of his right to have his heard case before a board of officers, to be represented by counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  His commander cited his lack of general adaptability, mature judgement, want of readiness of skill and his inability to learn as the reason for his recommendation for discharge.  The commander stated that the applicant was recycled into stock control and accounting class.  The commander further stated, in summary, that he was administratively relieved from his duties due to emergency leave with the intentions of re-enrollment in class upon termination of leave.  The recommendation for discharge shows that the applicant returned from leave and stated that he would not attend any type of classes because he was applying for a hardship discharge.  When he was asked to present the required documentation to apply for discharge, he was unable to present the documentation because he believed that it was not his responsibility to acquire the necessary documentation.  

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 13 September 1973.  The attending physician diagnosed him as having an inadequate personality and determined that he was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The physician stated that he related his continued failures with people and jobs to the malicious intent of others instead of to his own inability or inadequacy.  The physician further stated that in all probability he would not improve and would never function at a satisfactory level and the physician recommended that he be administratively separated from the Army.  

On 21 September 1973, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation for discharge and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The recommendation for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 26 September 1973.  Accordingly, on 2 October 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He had completed 7 months and 5 days of total active service and he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 when an applicant submits a request for a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if it is  determined that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 his rights.

2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, there is no evidence of record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to show that he met the criteria established for applying for a hardship discharge.  The records clearly show that the applicant was presented with numerous opportunities to submit the required documentation to apply for a hardship discharge and he failed to do so.  Additionally, he waived his right to have his case heard by a board of officers and he opted not to submit statements in his own behalf.  Considering all the facts of the case it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate.  

4.  Further, 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 when an applicant submits a request for a change in discharge.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

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

___be___  ___rgh __  ___gg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028664	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/10/02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	547	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  730	144.7800/A78.000	
2.  189	110.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.