MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075644

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no argument or evidence to support his request.

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

He enlisted on 10 February 1975, for a period of 3 years, assignment to the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and training as an engineer equipment repairman.  He completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was transferred to Hawaii on 9 April 1975.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 10 June 1975.

On 5 December 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended for 30 days), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 5 January 1976, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, due to apathy and his continual shirking of responsibilities.  He further indicated that he was recommending that he receive a general discharge.

On 12 January 1976, NJP was again imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily consented to be discharged under the EDP with a general discharge.  He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he was bitter with the Army because he did not feel that the training he received was what he was promised. He also indicated that while all of the incidents for which he was counseled may be irresponsible, he believed that they were, in plain part, accidental, and that his negative feeling towards the Army contributed to them.  He also regretted that he could not adapt to Army life or fulfill his end of his contract.  

The commander initiated the separation action on 13 January 1976 and indicated that the basis for his recommendation was the applicant’s disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, his repeated failure to go to his place of duty, defective attitude and continual shirking of responsibilities.  He further indicated that the applicant required constant supervision and displayed an inability to complete even the simplest tasks.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 2 February 1976 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 20 February 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the EDP for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.  He had served 1 year and 11 days of total active service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973.  In a message dated 8 November 1974 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of soldiers who’s acceptability, performance of duty and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the EDP.  Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under other provisions of the regulation which in most cases resulted in an other than 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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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

3.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board finds that his service was not fully honorable and finds that there is no basis to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable.

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

__mvt___  __jhl ____  __rtd ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075644	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/02/20	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH5	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  730	144.7800/A78.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.