MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF         

	BOARD DATE:            23 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR200049558

	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:

	Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Paula Mokulis		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 Separation Program Designator (SPD) "JGH" code, shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be removed.  He further requests the issuance of a new DD Form 214, which would reflect these changes.  He submits a copy of his DD Form 214 dated 17 May 1978.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he feels his separation code as shown on his DD Form 214, causes him to be systematically rejected or to experience adverse effects when seeking employment.  

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

The applicant was born on 29 September 1957, and completed 12 years of formal education.  He then enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 19, on 
26 April 1977 for 3 years.  

On 6 May 1977, he completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, for Advanced Individual Training.  On 18 August 1977, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Infantryman) and then transferred to Germany for duty.

On 7 February 1978, DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) was issued showing that the applicant was listed as being absent without leave (AWOL), for one day.  

On 28 April 1978, his unit commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  A general discharge (GD) was recommended.  The commander cited the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, failure to demonstrate promotion potential, inability to accept instructions or directions, clearly substandard performance, lack of cooperation with his peers and supervisors, evidence of social/emotional maladjustment and three counseling sessions as the bases for the separation action.  

On 2 May 1978, the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily consented to discharge and did not submit a statement.  On the same day he also received a mental status examination, which cleared him for separation, with no further indication in his record of any outstanding medical or mental conditions. 

On 5 May 1978, the applicant received nonjudical punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from 13 – 21 April 1978.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  

On an unknown date the unit commander recommended he be approved for a GD. 

On 9 May 1978, 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 5-31. 

On 17 May 1978, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  The SPD was JGH (Failure to Maintain Acceptable Standards for Retention).  He had completed 1 year and 13 days of active service and had 9 days lost time during two periods of AWOL. 

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.  The EDP did not apply to Reserve or Army National Guard personnel on any type of active duty training.  The SPD "JGH" was the appropriate designator for discharge under this test program.

On 31 January 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade. 

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.  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.

2.  In the applicant’s case, his military records show that he consented to an EDP discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP) and was assigned SPD “JGH” with a GD.  

3.  The Board determined that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  Further, while the Board is empathetic to the applicant's personal employment problems, they were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an change in his separation code.

5.  The type of discharge directed, therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned separation code is still appropriate.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that his separation code is in error or should be changed.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’ request.

DETERMINATION:  The subject applicant was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JHK __  ___TL___  __PM ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049558	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001/08/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	EDP	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1978-05-17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 PARA 5-31	
DISCHARGE REASON	A144.24	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A100.03	
2.	A71.10	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.