MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  26 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000040797

	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	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was told that after many years, he could have his discharge upgraded.  The applicant provides no evidence or documentation in support of his request.

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

That he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 1974.  After completing training, he was assigned to Company A, 3d Battalion, 39th Infantry, at Fort Lewis, Washington, on 18 September 1974, as a supply clerk.  Between January and July 1975, the applicant had 3 Articles 15 (willful disobedience of a lawful order, disrespectful and insubordinate to a senior noncommissioned officer, and absent from place of duty), 16 counseling sessions for poor job performance and apathy, and one failed rehabilitative transfer.  On 29 July 1975, the applicant’s company commander recommended that he be discharged for unsuitability.  A board of officers was conducted on 11 September 1975 to make a recommendation on the applicant’s separation.  After review of the applicant’s record, evidence, and witness testimonies, the board recommended that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability with a general discharge.  On 8 October 1975, the separation authority approved the board’s recommendation but suspended action for 
6 months to give the applicant a probationary period for, “one final opportunity to demonstrate that he is capable of behaving properly.”  The applicant was transferred to another company, Combat Support Company, 3rd Battalion, 
39th Infantry, at Fort Lewis.

On 2 January 1976, the applicant’s company commander requested a revocation of the discharge suspension.  He justified his request by stating, “Since entering this unit on 20 October 1975, (the applicant) has shown himself to be an undependable soldier and has not only been arrested by the Military Police for possession of marijuana, but is also currently pending Article 15 action for failure to obey a lawful order.”  The separation authority revoked the discharge suspension and the applicant was so discharged on 11 February 1976 at the pay grade of E-2 with a general discharge under honorable conditions after 1 year, 
9 months, and 20 days of creditable service.  The authority for his discharge was Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-5b(3), unsuitability- apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions exist: inaptitude, apathy, personality disorder, or homosexuality.  The regulation requires in the case of apathy that separation action will be taken when in the commander’s judgment the individual exhibits lack of appropriate interest, defective attitude, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  Prior to a recommendation for separation for unsuitability, the individual will be given an opportunity for rehabilitation through counseling and a transfer to another unit.  The type of discharge furnished an individual for unsuitability will be either an honorable or general discharge based on the individual’s military record.

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 discharge for unsuitability-apathy with a general discharge is both correct and just based on the applicant’s military record and Army Regulation 635-200.

2.  There is no provision to upgrade a discharge based on time elapsed since date of the discharge.

3.  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

___md___  ___ao___  ___wp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040797	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001026	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760211	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144	Administrative Discharge	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.