MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039143

	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. McKim-Spilker 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone 		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer 		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, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded and that it was recently brought to his attention that he had to make application for an upgrade; and, that he is rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Administration.

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

On 10 September 1973 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Field Artillery Crewman) and was assigned to Germany on 18 December 1973. 

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private/E-2 and that the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 14 May 1974 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to follow a lawful order on two occasions.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $50.

On 31 May 1974 he accepted NJP for disrespect to a noncommissioned officer.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-1 (suspended for 60 days) and a forfeiture of $70.

On 5 November 1974 the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The unit commander indicated that his specific reasons for initiating separation action were: three Article 15s (only two are of record); the applicant’s hostile attitude towards authority and the military in general; numerous counseling statements by the chain of command; and, his lack of interest in his duties. 

On 5 November 1974 the applicant voluntarily consented to elimination under the EDP.  Accordingly, on 11 November 1974 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of the EDP with a General Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with 1 year, 2 months, and 2 days active military service.

Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-37 provides, in part, for the discharge of enlisted personnel whose performance of duty and potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required in the Army.  Individuals discharged under that regulation could be issued a general or honorable discharge. 

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The unit commander appropriately determined that the applicant’s quality of service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the applicant’s misconduct and poor duty performance.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded, however, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that requires automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

3.  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 this requirement.

4.  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

___jhl___  __jns____  __mhm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039143	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19741111	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.2400.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9219.0000	
2. 	144.0100.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.