APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He wants to enlist in the Reserves.  He was young and disobeyed an order.  He was told he could get an upgrade six months after his discharge.

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

He was born on 27 May 1959.  He completed 11 years of formal education.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 June 1977 for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).

On 9 June 1978, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana.

On 10 August 1978, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 14 November 1978, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order.

On 8 March 1979, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 February - 2 March 1979.

On 26 March 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-31, Expeditious Discharge Program.  He cited the applicant’s four Article 15s and his inability to follow orders; recalcitrance; substandard personal appearance; apathy and unresponsiveness to unit counseling.

On 26 March 1979, the applicant acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.

On 3 April 1979, the applicant received a local bar to reenlistment.

On 10 April 1979, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 16 April 1979, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 20 April 1979, he was discharged with a character of service of “under honorable conditions,” (a general discharge) in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5.  He had completed 1 year,    9 months and 20 days of creditable active service and had 18 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that members who have completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged.  It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.  No member will be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge given was appropriate considering the applicant’s overall military record with due consideration given his age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.
4.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




                        	Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director