MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068738

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that the GD he received under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) would be automatically upgraded to an HD.

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

On 12 August 1981, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed training in and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
91B (Medical Specialist).

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).  However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 21 May 1982, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  

In addition, the applicant was counseled on the following five occasions for the infractions indicated:  6 May 1982, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 11 May 1982, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 12 May 1982, for failure to report to physical training; 18 May 1982, for being absent without leave (AWOL), failure to report to his appointed place of duty, and for disobeying a lawful order; and 21 June 1982, for failure to report to his appointed place of duty and neglect of his duties and responsibilities. 

On 19 July 1982, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of the EDP, paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200.  The commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation, self discipline, poor attitude, and lack of promotion potential as the reasons for the separation action.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 26 July 1982, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant receive a GD.  On 29 July 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 11 months and 18 days of active military service.

There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31, in effect at the time, stated that individuals who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of their poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged form the Army.

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 GD was to be automatically upgraded to an HD under the provisions of the EDP, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when and if the applicant applies to either the ADRB or this Board requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if an authorized Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, after full consideration of his entire record, the Board concludes that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.

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

     SAC          KWL           JTM      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068728	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD )	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820719	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Paragraph 5-13, EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.