MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 June 2003  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084111

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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), and that the reason for his discharge be changed to medical.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, members of his chain of command in two separate units hated him based on his race.  He also claims that during his service, he experienced serious medical problems related to his feet and was required to wear shower shoes for 18 months.  

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

He served on active duty from 12 January 1966 through 15 January 1969, at which time he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS).  

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his separation on 15 January 1969 shows that was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 43E (Parachute Rigger).  This document also confirms that he completed a total of 3 years of active military service, that he served overseas in Europe for 10 months and 26 days, and that during this period of service he earned the Parachute Badge and National Defense Service Medal (NDSM).  

On 23 September 1970, the applicant reentered active duty on the enlistment under review.  His Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that immediately after his reenlistment, he was assigned to Fort Kobbe, Panama Canal Zone, where he arrived for duty on 17 October 1970.  During this assignment, he served in four different units as a result of receiving three separate rehabilitative reassignments.  The conduct and efficiency ratings he received from these units were all unsatisfactory.  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 
1 September 1971, for disobeying the lawful order of a superior commissioned officer.  In addition, on 2 July 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully wearing the improper insignia on his uniform.

On 25 January 1972, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Department of the Army (DA) Message (MSG) 2421102Z (Qualitative Management).  The unit commander stated that the action was being taken because the applicant had served in the grade of 
E-2 since 7 September 1971, and had been denied promotion as of 7 January 1972.  

The unit commander also indicated that the applicant admitted that he did not believe he able to perform his duties in a military manner, and could not perform as a professional soldier.  The unit commander further explained that the applicant had been reassigned to four different units during his tour in the command for rehabilitation purposes; however, these rehabilitative measures failed.  

On 4 February 1972, the separation authority approved the unit commander’s request for the applicant’s discharge, and directed that the applicant receive a GD.  On 11 February 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The applicant’s record contains no indication that he suffered from a medically disqualifying condition that rendered him unfit for further service at the time of his discharge.  

On 29 August 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that both the characterization and reason for his discharge were proper and equitable.  

DA Message DAPE-MPP 242110Z Sep 71, in effect at the time, contained the Army policy that authorized the separation of enlisted personnel for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.  

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 contentions that members of his chain of command in two different units hated him based on his race, and that at the time of his discharge he suffered from a medical condition that should have resulted in his receiving a medical discharge.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the Army policy in effect at the time.  Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the applicant’s rights were fully protecting throughout his separation processing.  

3.  The Board takes any allegation of racial bias seriously, and would never let stand an action that was the result of discrimination.  However, the Board finds no evidence in this case that supports the applicant’s allegation that racial prejudice played a part in his discharge.  Further, there is no evidence showing that the applicant suffered from a disqualifying medical condition that would have warranted his being processed for separation through medical channels.  

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

__LF__  _WTM__  __LE__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084111	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/02/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	DA Msg 2421102Z Sep 71	
DISCHARGE REASON	Failure to Demonstrate Potential for Prom	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.