MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075595

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 he had no judicial acts against him while he was in the service.  He indicates that when he was discharged he asked the processing sergeant what under honorable conditions meant and he was told that it would change after 30 days.  He indicates that he believed he was being separated under a farmer’s discharge.  His unit commander had told him that if a soldier serving in Germany had less than 30 days to go, he could be separated early if you lived on a farm because it was planting season.  

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

On 12 July 1960, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 140.00 (Field Artilleryman).

The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was corporal/E-4 (CPL/E-4).  However, Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) also shows that he was reduced as indicated on the dates listed:  from private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3) to private/E-2 (PVT/E-2) on 19 July 1961, from CPL/E-4 to PFC/E-3 on 1 July 1962, and from PFC/E-3 to PVT/E-2 on 5 June 1963.  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does contain an extensive 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 seven separate occasions.

On 19 March 1963, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a Certificate that certified that the applicant’s attitude, performance of duty, and dependability were so lacking that it required an excessive amount of personal supervision since he had been a member of the unit.  The unit commander confirmed that the applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings were unsatisfactory.  

On 20 March 1963, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a Personnel Action (DA Form 1049), Subject:  Barring Enlistment of Substandard Personnel, pertaining to the applicant.  He proposed that the applicant be identified as substandard under the provisions of paragraph 8c, Army Regulation 635-200, based on the reasons outlined in his 19 March 1963 Certificate.  The DA Form 1049 contained a statement indicating that he would be barred from reenlisting in the Army, and would be given a GD at the termination of his enlistment.  The applicant signed a statement confirming that he read and understood the allegations made and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  
On 5 April 1963, the Barring Enlistment of Substandard Personnel action was approved by the appropriate authority.  The approval endorsement indicated that an entry that the applicant was not recommended for further service would be made in his service record. 

On 29 June 1963, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 7, Army Regulation 635-205, by reason of Early Release of Overseas Returnee, and he was issued a GD based on his previously approved bar to reenlistment.  

On 5 November 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The version in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge provided for issuing a GD to substandard personnel at the completion of their term of service.  

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 he was told that his discharge would be changed in 30 days, that he was released early because he lived on a farm, and that based on these factors his GD should be upgraded to an HD.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was barred from reenlistment and identified as substandard prior to his separation.  In accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, members declared substandard and who were barred from reenlistment received a GD at the completion of their term of service.  The applicant signed a statement acknowledging that he understood these facts at the time the bar to reenlistment was imposed.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant was or should have been aware of the basis for his receiving a GD.  

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time. 

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

__AAO__  __KWL__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075595	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1963/06/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-205	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early Release-Overseas Returnee	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.