MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 February 2002    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065297

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she asked to be released from active duty after her brother was killed.  She contends that she was not content being in the military, that the military did not live up to her standards, and that she felt violated while in the military.  She also contends that she was told her discharge would automatically be upgraded after a certain amount of time.  In support of her application, she submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 14 June 2000.      
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted on 14 January 1972 for a period of 3 years.  She successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for duty as a personnel specialist.

On 12 October 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 September 1972 to 
26 September 1972.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended for 30 days).

Records show that between 23 October 1972 and 6 April 1973, the applicant was counseled on 16 occasions (no other details available).

On 12 February 1973, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  She cited that the applicant’s duty performance was substandard and that because of her performance of duty and lack of interest in the military, the applicant was retested for aptitude scores on 26 March 1973.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and separation medical examination on 11 April 1973 and was found qualified for separation.

On 27 April 1973, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.

On 30 April 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, representation by counsel and elected to submit a statement on her behalf.  However, the applicant’s statement is not available for review.  The applicant also acknowledged that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued.  
 
The available records do not contain the separation authority’s action.  However, separation orders show the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 17 May 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that she had 1 year, 3 months and 18 days of total active service with 15 days lost due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 provided for discharge due to unfitness and unsuitability.  Specific categories for unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, alcoholism and homosexuality.  The regulation also states that when separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as warranted by his/her military record.  

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 Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that she was told her discharge would automatically be upgraded after a certain amount of time.   However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.  

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

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

4.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that her discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
  
5.  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.

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

FNE____  MKP_____  LE______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065297	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730517	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.