MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066530

	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:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded to honorable and has just discovered that it was not done.

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

He enlisted in Providence, Rhode Island, on 23 January 1976, for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to the 7th Infantry Division at Fort Ord, California. 

He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, to undergo his basic training and on 18 March 1976, was transferred to a special training company.  He eventually completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, on 17 May 1976.  He completed his advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Ord on 21 July 1976.

On 4 August 1976, he was counseled by his squad leader regarding his inability to get along with members of his squad and to control his temper.  He was again counseled on 12 August 1976 regarding his attitude, disrespect, lack of motivation and disregard for his peers.  On 25 August 1976, he was counseled for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and for failure to obey a lawful order from an NCO.

On 15 November 1976, he was counseled by his platoon sergeant for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO and for lying to an NCO.  He was counseled again the same day for communicating a threat towards an NCO.

The applicant underwent a psychological evaluation at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service at Fort Ord on 10 December 1976, which opined that the applicant presented a hostile attitude towards authority and some peers.  He has a chronic history of being inappropriate with his anger and his efforts to change his perspective since entry on active duty had met with negative results.  The applicant was deemed to have no signs of psychiatric illness that would warrant medical separation and was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the commander.

On 29 December 1976, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 20 December 1976.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 17 December 1976, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions by the commander, platoon leader, and his enlisted chain of command.  He also cited the applicant’s negative attitude towards further military service, his stated and demonstrated inability to adapt to military life, lack of   self-discipline and lack of motivation.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge with the understanding that he might receive a general discharge and could expect to encounter some prejudice in civilian life.  He also acknowledged that he could only be discharged under the EDP if he agreed to the discharge and that he could withdraw his consent anytime prior to approval by the discharge authority.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 19 January 1977 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 25 February 1977, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 and the EDP.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 3 days of total active service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant 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 Expeditious Discharge Program (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 acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall 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 considered for separation under this expanded program had to agree to separation under this program.  Soldiers who did not agree to separation under this provision were not exempt from separation under another provision of the regulation.  An honorable of general discharge were required and there has never been any provisions for an automatic upgrade of a discharge less than fully honorable.

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 applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, his discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention and find it to be without merit. There have never been any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a discharge and there is no evidence to suggest that he was informed that such was the case. 

3.  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.

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

___dh___  __kan___  __mhm __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066530	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1977/02/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH5 	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  516	144.2900/A29.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.