MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039120

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette E Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and that the reason for discharge be changed from the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) to a physical disability discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he is now diagnosed as being schizophrenic and receives no (military) disability.  He further states that he was to the point of being epileptic when he served in Germany.  He also points out that while he was being treated as a patient at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Boise, Idaho, he was given advice on how to get his GD changed regardless of the reason, but “didn’t want to come out of the closet as being mentally ill.”  Finally, he claims that he is “ready to do that now” and makes further reference to his mental illness starting during his basic training from 
1976 to 1977.  In support of his case, he provides a partial copy of a mental examination conducted by a licensed psychologist undated, which shows he received mental health services after his discharge from the service from1984 through the early 1990’s and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 18 January 1978.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 November 1976.  He took his basic training and completed his advanced training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63C10 (Track Vehicle Mechanic), on 26 April 1977, at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He was then assigned to Germany.

On 9 November 1977, the applicant received nonjudical punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code Military Justice, for unlawfully striking another enlisted member in the face with his fists.  His punishment included forfeiture of $103.00 pay and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. 

On 13 December 1977, his commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the EDP.  A GD was being recommended.  The commander cited the applicant's repeated counselings and disciplinary actions, with no attempt to change his anti-social behavior as the basis for the separation action.  He was also notified of the rights available to him to include the right to consultation with legal counsel.  He acknowledged this notification, and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On the same day, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed his discharge under the EDP with the issuance of a GD in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37.  On 
14 December 1977, he received a mental evaluation and a medical examination, which cleared him for separation.

On 18 January 1978, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the EDP by reason of inability to adapt socially or emotionally.  He had completed a total of 
1 year, 2 months and 11 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.  

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-37 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to clearly be substandard performers under the EDP.  This paragraph also provided for the separation of those individuals who obviously could not adjust to the Army environment, and or those who responded initially but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment.  Under this regulation, a GD or an HD was considered appropriate.  Further, the regulation stated that no individual would be given a GD by the separation authority unless the commander initiating the action for separation, recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.

There is no record that he ever submitted a request for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable laws and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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 therefore, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  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.  His substandard record of service fully supported the directed discharge action, as evidenced by his NJP action and repeated counselings.

3.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reason therefore was appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  There is no probative evidence of any medical problems in his record or with his application that shows he had any medical condition which precluded his performance of duty.  His mental and medical evaluations at the time of separation do not point to any condition(s) that required treatment prior to separation.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there has been no basis established to change the reason for his discharge, and that he has no entitlement to further compensation from the military.

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

____slp __  ___tlp   _  ____mw__  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039120	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780118	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 PARA 5-37	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.