PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           29 October 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067707

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated because he was arrested in the civilian community for shoplifting and spent 8 days in jail.  He believes that 25 years is long enough to pay for one mistake.  He adds that an upgrade would enhance his employment opportunities.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that, on 23 June 1975, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B, Field Radio and Electronics Specialist.

5.  Following basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and MOS training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, he was awarded MOS 31B and assigned to Company B, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with duty as a field radio mechanic.

6.  On 20 September 1976, the applicant's company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program, or EDP), Army Regulation 635-200.  He informed the applicant that he was recommending a GD.  The applicant acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to discharge.  

7.  The company commander forwarded the separation packet to the battalion commander and stated that the applicant "consistently displayed the inability to adapt to military standards . . . [or] show[ed] any promotion potential."  Further, he had a "poor attitude, lack of motivation, and [an] apathetic approach to his job."  He was relieved as the company commander's radio operator because he could not carry the equipment or execute simple radio procedures.  He was incompetent and also a disciplinary problem with one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice [the record of NJP is not in the applicant's file].

8.  On 30 September 1976, a major, serving as acting battalion commander and the approving authority, approved the applicant's separation with a GD.  He was separated on 7 October 1976.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) shows that he had 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days of creditable active Federal service and 8 days of lost time from 22-29 September 1975.

9.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade within the statutory time limit imposed by that board.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  As amended by Department of the Army messages, the regulation then in effect covered discharges under the expeditious discharge program wherein only a commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel or above could separate soldiers who demonstrated that they could not, or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  Personnel discharged under this provision were given honorable or general discharges.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was not separated because of an arrest by civil authorities for shoplifting; there is no mention of this arrest in his military records.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of the EDP for failure to meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.

2.  According to Army Regulation 635-200 then in effect, EDP separations could only be approved by commanders in the rank of lieutenant colonel and above.  The applicant's expeditious discharge was approved by a major.

3.  The applicant's separation is improper.  In similar situations, the ADRB has upgraded the characterization of service to fully honorable and has changed the authority and reason to paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the GD (DD Form 214) of 7 October 1976 now held by the individual concerned and by issuing to him an HD of the same date with paragraph 5-3, AR 635-200 as the authority and Secretarial Authority as the narrative reason.

BOARD VOTE:  

__kak___  __tap___  __bjl___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Karol A. Kennedy
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067707	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021029	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761007	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5-31	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.