MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           9 October 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003091656

	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. Yvonne J. Foskey .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast . 		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 at the time of his discharge he was told that he could get his discharge upgraded from GD to an HD.

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

On 31 May 1977, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudical punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following five separate occasions for the offense indicated:  4 August 1977, theft of a camera; 
8 August 1977, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; December 1977, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 6 January 1978, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 18 January 1978, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  

On 18 February 1978, the unit commander notified the applicant that action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program-EDP), Army Regulation 635-200, was being initiated.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation, immaturity, and complete disregard for rules and regulations as the basis for taking the action.  

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification from his commander and elected to voluntarily consent to discharge from the Army.  He also chose to waive his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant also acknowledged that he had been counseled in regard to the prejudice he could face in civilian life as a result of receiving a GD and that he was provided the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.  

On 21 February 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he receive a GD.  On 15 March 1978, he was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his separation, the applicant had completed a total of 9 months and 15 days of creditable active service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the EDP.  This provision provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.

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 he was informed he could get his GD upgraded to HD, and while this is true it is not an automatic action.  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 an applicant submits an application to either the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board.  If either Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable, it would recommend a change.  

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly notified of the separation action initiated against him and after being afforded the rights associated with an EDP discharge, to include the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, he voluntarily consented to the discharge.  

3.  The evidence of record also confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time, and that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

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

_ECP___  ___RO__  __RJO__    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.