MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           15 March 2000     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030785

	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.

	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like his discharge upgraded due to the stress and mental anguish he incurred during his service in the military.  He contends that it has been 21 years since his discharge but he is now an active member of the Veterans Club at the Correctional Complex.  He also contends that he was told his discharge would be upgraded after a year.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 1 September 1977 for a period of 3 years.  While in basic training, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 15 October 1977 for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay. 

While in advanced individual training, on 27 January 1978, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to obey a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty.

The applicant was transferred to Germany in April 1978 for duty as a medical specialist. 

On 3 June 1978 NJP was imposed against the applicant for communicating a threat to injure.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $198 pay for one month ($100 suspended for 60 days), restriction for 30 days (suspended for 60 days) and 14 days of extra duty. 

On 5 July 1978 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s lack of 
self-discipline, his inability to adapt to the military standards of personal conduct and discipline, and his disciplinary record (3 NJP’s and 7 counseling statements).

The applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation, voluntarily consented to this discharge and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf on 5 July 1978.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 3 May 1978 and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  A mental status evaluation was conducted on 9 May 1978 and competent medical authority determined that the applicant’s behavior was passive, he was fully alert and oriented, mood was depressed, thinking process was clear, thought content was normal and memory was good.  There was no significant mental illness noted, the applicant was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, he was mentally responsible, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and he met the retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 7 July 1978 and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention on 31 July 1978.  He had served 11 months and 1 day of total active service.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  Individuals discharged under the provisions of this paragraph may be awarded an honorable or general 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.  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 of the facts of the case.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he suffered stress and mental anguish during his period of service.  However, prior to his discharge from the Army, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and mental status evaluation and was found qualified for separation. 

4.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that indicates he was told his discharge would be upgraded after a year.  Nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his allegation that his discharge would be automatically upgraded.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.

5.  The applicant failed to convince the board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

6.  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

RVO___  MKP_____  VBC____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030785	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000315	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780731	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Paragraph 5-31  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.