MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:       

BOARD DATE:            18 June 2002
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062430

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. Maria C. Sanchez		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In January 1975 he was discharged from the Army with an Honorable Discharge and that there is no indication in his records that he was ever a trouble maker or disrespectful to authority.  When he reenlisted in December 1975, as a newlywed, he believed it would be a good career opportunity.  While in the field, he learned that a soldier in his company was having an affair with his wife.  He also stated that he learned that the Army was no place for a family and did not care one bit if a soldier had family problems.  He attempted to solve his own problems by taking a leave of absence and going home to Columbia, South Carolina, to see if his wife’s parents could help.  To no avail, and the refusal of his wife, he called his Company Commander to inform him of the trouble he was having.  The Commander had no sympathy, and told him to return immediately.  When he returned to Fort Riley, he received an Article 15 for being 7 days late from leave.  Looking back, he does not believe that to be fair.

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

On 1 February 1973, he enlisted in the Army for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a field radio mechanic.  On 11 July 1974, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4.  He was then honorably discharged on 31 January 1975.

The applicant reenlisted on 1 December 1975, for a period of 4 years and was assigned to the 977th MP Company in Fort Riley, Kansas, in the pay grade of 
E-4.

On 6 July 1976, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 26 June 1976 until 3 July 1976.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and 14 days of extra duty.

On 20 July 1976, the applicant submitted an appeal to the NJP imposed against him.  On 26 July 1976, his commander denied his appeal.

On 24 August 1976, the applicant was counseled for not getting a haircut and trimming his moustache to regulation.  His supervisor informed him that not conforming to regulation could result in extra training.  The applicant submitted a statement indicating that he preferred a Chapter 13 discharge rather than the extra training.

On 25 August 1976, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) had been initiated.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and on 25 August 1976, he submitted a voluntary consent to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 paragraph 5-37, under the EDP, based on his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  The applicant waived his right to submit a statement and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a GD under honorable conditions.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 14 September 1976.  Accordingly, on 21 September 1976, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, and the EDP.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 whose acceptability, performance of duty and/or potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers may 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 provision of the EDP.  Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under the 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, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions and his personal accomplishments he made after his discharge.  However, these accomplishments are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  In order to justify correction of 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

___mm__  __alr____  __kak ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062430	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/09/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, para 5-37	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.