MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056531

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her general discharge was caused by an undiagnosed disorder and that had it been discovered prior to her discharge, she would have received an honorable discharge.  She also states that her having a general discharge causes her anxiety and upsets her.  It also reminds her of her service-connected trauma and she contends that she has received a 
service-connected rating of 100% from the Veterans Administration (VA).

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

She enlisted in Seattle, Washington on 20 February 1973 for a period of 3 years, training as a personnel specialist and assignment to Europe.

She successfully completed her training and was transferred to Germany on 21 July 1973 for duty as a clerk.  She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 9 August 1974. 

On 15 January 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against her for disobeying a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer and for being absent from her place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3.

On the same day, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s repetitive display of habits and traits of character manifested by immature and undisciplined behavior, her disregard of unit policy and her failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions. 

The applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification and indicated that she accepted discharge from the Army under the conditions stated (general discharge) and she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate based on her discharge for unsuitability by reason of apathy, defective attitudes and her inability to expend effort constructively. 

Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 31 January 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 for unsuitability.  She had served 1 year, 11 months and 11 days of total active service.
The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973.  In a message dated 8 November 1974 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of soldiers who’s acceptability, performance of duty and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the EDP.  Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under other provisions of the regulation which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.

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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

3.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record.  She was properly notified of the commander’s intent to recommend separation and was required to consent to the separation before the recommendation could be processed further.  The applicant consented to the separation under the EDP and elected not to submit matters in her own behalf.

5.  The Board finds that her service was not fully honorable and lacking evidence to show otherwise, finds that there is no basis to upgrade her discharge to fully honorable.

6.  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

____gw__  __inw ___  ___fe ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056531	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/01/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/CH5	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  730	144.7800/A78.00/EDP	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.