MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           10 October 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056190

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		Member	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		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 (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he requested discharge because he was continuously passed over for promotion even though he was qualified.  He did not have any disciplinary actions against him.  He provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 29 January 1973.  Following completion of all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B, Clerk Typist, and was assigned to Germany.

On 19 May 1973, the applicant was promoted to private/E-2.  

On 24 July 1974, the applicant's company commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel guidance as stated in a letter, dated 12 August 1973, Subject:  Expeditious Discharge Program; the company commander recommended a GD. The company commander stated that his reasons for the proposed action were the applicant’s inability to perform in his unit, his display of ineptness and apathy, his lack of work production, poor appearance, and lack of response to repeated corrections and counseling sessions.  The applicant had been counseled 18 times.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he requested that he be given an honorable discharge instead of a GD.

On 25 October 1974, the applicant’s discharge was approved with the issuance of a GD.  He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 17 days of active military service.  He was separated as a private/E-2.

There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statue of limitations.

The Expeditious Discharge Program provided that soldiers who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of their initial enlistment could be separated for demonstrating that they could not, or would not meet acceptable standards.  The soldier must have voluntarily consented to separation.

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.  Although the applicant had no nonjudicial punishments or disciplinary actions, the applicant had been counseled 18 times for a myriad of issues related to minor misconduct and poor duty performance.  The applicant's failure to gain promotion was related to his poor duty performance and was not an issue in his separation.

3.  The applicant’s 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.

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

_ LLS ___  __CG___  __JRS___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056190	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011010	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19741115	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	HQS USAREUR LTR, dated 3 Oct 73 	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.