MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071392

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was informed upon his discharge that it would be upgraded after 6 months.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 January 1973.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

On 18 October 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ on 7 June 1974 for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner by backing up without a ground guide and thereby causing an accident.  On 21 June 1974, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner by disregarding a traffic signal and thereby causing an accident.

On 27 May 1975, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being disorderly in uniform in a public place.  He was sentenced to forfeit $200 pay, to be restricted for 30 days, and to perform extra duty for 30 days.

On or about 17 June 1975, the applicant received a bar to reenlistment.  His record of Article 15s and court-martial plus his pending trial by civil authority for attempted murder and pending action for drunk/disorderly conduct and assault on a military policeman were cited as the basis for the bar.

On 14 August 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  On 13 January 1976, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting himself from his place of duty.  

On 15 January 1976, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a 5-ton truck, the property of the U. S. Government and of damaging that truck through neglect.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $240.00 pay for 6 months.

On 4 February 1976, while in confinement at the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, the applicant received a social work evaluation.  It was noted that although he was scheduled to separate upon his expiration term of service after the completion of training, he stated that he wanted out “now” and he did not care what type of discharge he received.  He was diagnosed as having an inadequate personality, chronic, severe.  
On 20 February 1976, the applicant received a mental status evaluation by a medical doctor.  He was found to be mentally responsible, to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 11 February 1976, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.

On 18 February 1976, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the separation action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, he waived personal appearance before such a board, he waived representation by counsel, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 23 February 1976, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge.

On 25 February 1976, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He had completed 2 years,     11 months, and 19 days of creditable active service and had 51 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, is concluded:

1.  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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and as he indicated he desired.  Considering his numerous infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general was more than generous.

3.  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

__RJW__  ___LE___  __MVT__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071392	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/02/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 13.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.