MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           21 August 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084007

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told that his discharge was temporary and it would automatically be upgraded.  He further states that he had requested copies of his medical records, but was told they could not be found.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1973.  He completed basic training and entered advanced individual training (AIT) on 22 October 1973.  While in AIT the applicant on 29 October 1973, accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit on 23 October 1973.  His punishment included forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 1 month and restriction and extra duty for
7 days. 

On 28 October 1973, the applicant resumed AIT.  On 31 November 1973, he was awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Tactual Wire Operations Specialist). On 31 January 1974, he was transferred to Fort Kobbe, Panama for duty in his MOS.
 
On 9 August 1974, he accepted a second NJP for being absent from his place 
of duty and willfully disobeying a lawful order by his superior noncommissioned officer on 8 August 1974.  His punishment included forfeiture of $75.00 pay and reduction to pay grade E-1 and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. 

On 28 September 1974, the applicant was AWOL from Fort Kobbe, Panama.
 
On 14 November 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of 
being AWOL from 28 September to 30 October 1974.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months.  On 27 November 1974, the applicant was returned to the United States to serve his sentence at the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas.

On 19 February 1975, the applicant transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for duty in his MOS.

On 20 August 1975, he accepted a third NJP for being absent from his place 
of duty from 16 July to 12 August 1975.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2. 

On the same day the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him with a GD under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5, (the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)).  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of his rights and was informed of the impact of a GD, under honorable conditions.  He voluntarily consented to the discharge, but declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 September 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge.

On 16 September 1975, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5, the EDP.   He had completed 1 year, 
8 months and 14 days of creditable active service and had 133 days of lost time due to AWOL or confinement.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, as then in effect, 
provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet
acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.  The EDP did not apply to Reserve or Army National Guard personnel on any type of active duty training.  Separation program designator (SPD) "KMN" was the appropriate designator for discharge under this test program.

There is no available evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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 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 Department of Defense, Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

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.  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

JNS           RWA          RKS           DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084007	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003.08.21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/09/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 5.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A110.00	
2.	A71:00	
3.	A123.0100	
4.		
5.		
6.