MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001060131

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded based on the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), often referred to as the “Carter Program.”  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 18 November 1970, as a radio operator.  

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 7 May 1971, of being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer on two occasions and for assault.
His sentence consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 1 September 1971, for being AWOL from 7 July to 31 August 1971 (56 days).

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 29 September 1971, and was found qualified for separation.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings shows that he was advised by counsel on 21 September 1971, and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant submitted a statement, which indicated that he 
had serious personal problems at the time of his induction and expressed an extremely derogatory opinion of the Army and its personnel.  On 14 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request with the issuance of an undesirable discharge.  On 20 October 1971, he was discharged under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 7 months and 20 days of creditable service and had 99 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 6 August 1981.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 29 June 1982. 

The applicant reapplied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 13 July 2001.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations.  This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 13 July 2001.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted
personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

The SDRP, often referred to as the “Carter Program,” was announced on 29 March 1977.  The program mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of seven specified criteria to include various aspects of service in Vietnam.  Compelling reasons for upgrade under primary criteria were the award of a decoration or service medal, wounded in action, satisfactory completion of a tour of duty in Southeast Asia, receipt of a prior honorable discharge, or completion of satisfactory service of 24 months prior to discharge.
Reasons for granting an upgrade under secondary criteria include age, aptitude, education level, alcohol/drug problem, record of citizenship, etc.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on the SDRP, often referred to as the “Carter Program.”  However, the Board notes that the applicant did not serve in Vietnam, nor did he meet the reasons under the primary or secondary criteria under the SDRP.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation appear to be appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4.  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.

5.  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

__sk___  __iw____  __kh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060131	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011115	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711020	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.